BV  811  .B8 
Bush,  George  C. 
Bible  baptism  never 
immersion 


BIBLE  BAPTISM  NEVER 
IMMERSION. 


BY 

Rev.  GEO.  C.'bUSH. 


PHILADELPHIA : 
The  J  as.  B.  Rodgers  Printing  Company, 

62  and  54  North  Sixth  Street. 
1888. 


CopjTight,  1888,  by 
REV.  GEO.  C.  BUSH. 

All  Bights  Reserved. 


COE  TENTS. 


CHAP.  PAGE 

I.  One  baptism— baptism  by  the  Holy  Spirit 7 

II.  The  modal  acts  of  this  baptism  are  by  pouring,  sprink- 
ling, descending,  falling  upon — opposite  to  immersion.  10 

III.  Baptize,  its  meaning 22 

IV.  Baptizo  en — baptize  in  and  baptize  with 47 

y.  Baptizo  eis— baptize  into 50 

YI.  Baptismos — baptism 52 

VII.  Baptisma — baptism 53 

VIII.  Immersion,  why  introduced 55 

IX.  Reasons  assumed  for  immersion 58 

X.  Posture  in  baptism 68 

XI.  The  baptism  of  children 70 

XII.  Histoi  ical  evidence 85 

XIII.  The  relation  of  baptized  children  to  the  Church     ....  90 

XIV.  Conclusion 91 


IH"TEOr>UOTIOK 


The  writer  of  this  Book  is  a  believer 
in  baptism  with  water.  He  writes  to  cou- 
firm  like  believers,  and,  if  possible,  to  con- 
vince others  that  this  is  the  better  way. 
The  Church  is  to  see  eye  to  eye.  She  is 
to  reach  this  unity  by  clearer  views.  It  is 
hoped  this  work  may  contribute  something 
to  this  glorious  result.  The  writer  would 
neither  injure  nor  disband  the  beloved  Chris- 
tians calling  themselves  the  Baptist  Church. 
He  has  preached  for  and  labored  with  them. 
He  seeks  only  to  have  them  come  into  bet- 
ter views  and  more  charitable  practices,  has- 
tening that  day  when  the  people  of  God 
shall  be  one  in  communion  as  they  are  all 
one  in  spirit. 

Geo.  C.  Bush. 

West  Chester,  Pa,,  June  16, 1888. 
1* 


BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER   I. 

THE   ONE     BAPTISM. 

WHILE  baptism  with  water  was  prac- 
ticed by  the  Apostles,  yet  baptism  by 
the  Spirit  is  oftener  mentioned.  Dr.  Pep- 
per, a  Baptist  writer,  says  truly.  Gospel  and 
Ordinances  are  the  same  thing  in  two  forms. 
If  all  our  Baptist  friends  had  held  this 
truth,  Prof.  Dagg  would  not  write,  "  Now 
there  is  a  baptism  of  the  Spirit ;  if  water 
baptism  is  a  perpetual  ordinance,  then  there 
are  two  ^  baptisms  instead  of  one."  Nor 
would  Dr.  Carson  so  mistake  as  to  write,  "  If 
there  is  such  a  thing  as  infant  baptism,  there 
must  be  two  baptisms.'^      Infant  and  adult 

7 


8  BAPTISM. 

baptisms  are  no  more  two  than  American 
and  English  are  two.  Nor  should  another 
author,  R.  Ingham,  conclude,  ^'  If  this  one 
baptism  was  by  the  Spirit,  then  Paul  was 
guilty  of  an  omission,  nay,  of  a  misstate- 
ment/' The  Fathers  taught  truly  (as  Je- 
rome) "  since  all  have  been  baptized  into 
one  body,  they  have  received  the  same 
Spirit.^'  And  Ignatius  writes,  "  There  is 
one  baptism,  that  which  is  given  into  the 
death  of  our  Lord/' 

The  one  baptism  is  the  blessed  work  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  baptizing  us  into  Christ  and 
so  into  His  body  the  Church.  He  who 
wrote  to  the  Ephesians,  there  is  one  baptism, 
wrote  the  same  truth  more  fully  to  the 
Corinthians.  By  one  Spirit  are  we  all  bap- 
tized into  one  body,  and  have  all  been  made 
to  drink  into  one  Spirit.  1  Cor.  12  :  13.  In 
Gal.  3  :  27,  he  writes  that  this  baptism  is 
into  Christ.  Rom.  6  :  3  explains  it  farther^ 
As  many  of  us  as  have  been  baptized  into 
Christ,  have  been  baptized  into  His  death. 
This   baptism   gives   us   all   the  benefits  of 


THE  ONE  BAPTISM.  9 

Christ's  death.  It  is  as  if  we  died,  were 
buried,  and  rose  again,  with  sins  all  forgiven 
and  forsaken,  to  walk  in  newness  of  life. 

This  one  baptism  is  effected  by  the  Holy 
Ghost.  The  Greeks  said  that  wine-drinking 
baptized,  taking  an  opiate  baptized ;  so  the 
Apostle  follows  Greek  usage,  saying  in  con- 
nection with  baptism,  we  drink  into  one 
spirit.  Many  copies  leave  out  the  preposi- 
tion into.  Thus  it  is  exact  Greek  usage  to 
say  the  baptism  was  by  drinking  the  one 
Spirit. 


CHAPTER    II. 

BAPTISM  BY  THE  SPIRIT — ITS  MODE.     WHAT 
ARE  THE  MODAL  ACTS  OF  THIS  BAPTISM? 

OUR  Baptist  friends  warn  us  off  from 
such  an  examination,  saying  (Dr.  Car- 
son) "  it  is  a  figurative  expression.  Be- 
lievers are  said  to  be  immersed  into  the 
Spirit,  not  because  there  is  anything  like  im- 
mersion in  the  manner  of  the  reception  of 
the  Spirit," — -"'  there  can  be  no  likeness  to  it 
in  the  literal  baptism." 

What  is  the  meaning  of  such  phrases  ? 

1.  The  one  great  baptism  which  Jesus  ef- 
fects by  His  Spirit  is  only  figurative,  not 
real,  like  man's  baptism. 

2.  This  figurative  baptism  is  a  figure  that 
can  have  no  correspondence  to  that  wliich  is 
figured — a  figure  which  has  no  likeness  to  the 

10 


BAPTIS3I  BY  THE  SPIRIT.  H 

reality.  What  man,  in  his  reason,  ever  used 
such  a  figure  ?  How  wrong  to  impute  such 
a  violation  of  propriety  to  the  Holy  Spirit  ! 

3.  His  writing  "  immersed  into  the  Spirit '' 
contradicts  Scripture.  We  are  baptized  into 
Christ,  not  into  the  Spirit.  The  Spirit  is  the 
baptizing  agent,  not  the  receiving  element. 
Dr.  C.  errs  here  as  he  does  about  Pentecost 
baptism,  calling  it  immersion  into  emblems 
of  the  Spirit.  What  idea  has  an  immersion- 
ist  of  immersion  into  emblems  !  This  is  as 
ridiculous  as  the  Doctor's  idea  of  Israel's 
baptism  in  the  sea,  calling  it  a  "  dry  dip." 
Pentecost  baptism  was  not  into  emblems  of 
the  Spirit,  but  baptism  by  the  Spirit. 

4.  But  the  gravest  error  of  such  writing 
is  calling  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  figurative. 
If  there  is  anything  most  positively  real, 
real  in  the  experience  of  Christians  and  es- 
sential in  the  teachings  of  our  Lord,  it  is 
this  very  baptism  of  the  Spirit.  The  two 
great  transactions  revealed  in  Scripture  are 
1st,  the  death  of  Christ  to  save  sinners,  and 
2d,  the   application   of   that   death   in   the 


12  BAPTISM. 

blood  of  sprinkling  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  Let 
no  man  depreciate  the  chiefest  of  God's  do- 
ings. 

But  despite  the  warning  not  to  investi- 
gate, we  examine  the  modal  acts  ascribed  to 
the  Spirit.  As  it  is  the  one  baptism  of 
which  water  baptism  is  the  symbol,  its  modal 
acts  may  be  our  guide. 

John  said,  I  baptize  with  water,  Jesus 
shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Here  the  contrast  is  not  in  the  mode,  but  in 
the  instrument.  Both  John  and  Jesus  hap- 
tizedy  one  with  water,  the  other  with  the 
Holy  Ghost.  Our  Lord  said,  Acts  11  :  16, 
John  baptized  with  water,  but  ye  shall  be 
baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost.  Peter  says. 
Acts  11  :  15,  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  Corne- 
lius and  friends  as  on  us  at  the  beginning. 
Causing  the  Holy  Spirit  to  fall  on  Cornelius 
was  the  same  in  mode  as  that  of  Pentecost. 
This  baptism  was  eflPected  by  the  Spirit's 
being  poured  out.  Acts  2:  17.  This  was 
prophesied  by  Joel.  Peter  says  that  proph- 
ecy of  pouring  out  the  Spirit  was  that  day 


BAPTISM  BY  THE  SPIRIT.  13 

fulfilled.  This  baptism  was  by  pouring  outy 
Acts  10:  45,  or  falling  upon,  Acts  10:  44.  So 
the  Samaritans,  Acts  8  :  16,  17,  received 
the  Holy  "Spirit  by  his  falling  upon  them. 
Ez.  11:  5,  says.  The  Spirit  fell  uj^on  me. 
Prophets  and  Christians  received  the  Spirit 
by  his  falling  upon — being  poured  upon 
them.  And  this  is  called  a  baptism  by 
John  and  Peter  and  by  our  Lord.  Are 
they  competent  witnesses  ?  "  No  dipping, 
no  baptism,"  iis  disclaimed  by  this  testi- 
mony. 

In  John  16  :  7,  our  Lord  said,  I  will 
send  the  Comforter.  Acts  2 :  33,  records 
"  having  received  of  the  Father  the  j^romise 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  he  hath  shed  forth  this 
which  ye  now  see  and  hear.  Again  the  bap- 
tism of  the  Spirit  is  called  an  anointing. 
Acts  10  :  38.  God  anointed  Jesus  with  the 
Holy  Ghost.  Pouring  oil  upon  kings 
anointed  them  for  their  office.  Pouring  the 
Spirit  upon  Jesus  was  his  anointing.  So  he 
is  called  The  Anointed  ;  in  Greek,  Christos  ; 
in  Hebrew,  Messiah.     Anointing  is  then  the 


14  BAPTIS3I. 

equivalent  of    the  Spirit's  comiDg   upon — 
baptizing  him. 

Another  word  often  describes  this  modal 
act.  Matt.  3  :  16.  Jesus  saw  the  Spirit  cZe- 
scending  like  a  dove.  John  1  :  33. 
John  the  Baptist  saw  the  Spirit  de- 
scending from  heaven.  Here  the  descent  of 
the  Spirit  was  Christ's  baptism  by  the  Spirit, 
and  the  proof  that  he  should  baptize  with 
the  Holy  Ghost.  Here  the  modal  act  was 
the  descent  of  the  Spirit.  So  common  is 
this  idea  of  Spiritual  baptism,  that  a  Bap- 
tist Conference  in  England  lately  sent  saluta- 
tions to  one  here,  "  praying  the  descent  of  the 
baptism  of  the  Spirit  upon  them.'^  Chris- 
tians think  alike,  pray  alike,  and  send  salu- 
tations correctly  about  the  "  one  baptism,"  of 
which  water  baptism  is  only  the  profession. 
Acts  10:  47,  teaches  that  Peter  was  moved  to 
apply  water  baptism  by  seeing  the  baptism 
of  the  Spirit  fall  on  (v.  44),  poured  out  (v. 
45).  Did  he  reason  thus,  because  I  have 
seen  Jesus  pour  out  His  Spirit,  therefore,  I 
will  immerse  them  ?     How  absurd  to  repre- 


BAPTISM  BY  THE  SPIRIT.  15 

sent  that  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  by  any 
ceremony  with  water  if  the  water  was  not 
poured  also !  An  immersion  could  have  no 
correspondence.  It  would  be  a  contradic- 
tion. 

It  confirms  this  view  to  consider  that 
purifying  in  the  Old  Testament  is  effected  in 
the  same  way.  Is.  52  :  15,  He  shall  sprinkle 
many  nations.  Ez.  36  :  25,  I  wdll  sprin- 
kle clean  water  upon  you.  Hos.  14 :  5,  I 
will  be  as  the  dew.  Ps.  72  :  6,  He  shall 
come  down  like  rain. 

Now  the  dear  friends,  whom  we  would 
fain  win  to  see  eye  to  eye  with  us,  believe 
these  texts  describe  the  modal  acts  of  the 
Spirit.  Let  baptize  with  water,  have  the 
same  modal  acts,  and  the  barrier  between 
churches  is  cast  down.  If  baptism  with 
water  is  made  like  that  of  the  Spirit,  then 
the  water  should  be  poured  out,  caused  to 
fall  on,  to  sprinkle,  to  descend  as  dew,  as 
rain,  as  pure  water. 

This  view  is  confirmed  by  considering 
that  the  record  always  is  baptism  with,  not 


16  BAPTISM. 

in,  water.  The  water  is  always  like  the 
Spirit — the  instrument.  Baptisms  may  be 
into  Paul,  into  Moses,  into  Christ's  death. 
But  there  is  no  record  of  a  baptism  into 
water.  It  is  vain  to  say  baptize  has  the 
power  to  carry  one  under  water,  when  the 
constant  usage  of  Scripture  makes  the  bap- 
tizing instrument  descend.  The  Greeks  also 
used  baptize  where  there  was  no  immersion 
in  water.  They  said  one  was  baptized  with 
wine  and  taxes  and  tears  and  questions  and 
griefs  and  vice.  They  understand  baptize 
to  indicate  a  change,  not  in  one  mode,  but  in 
any  mode.  Chrysostom,  the  eloquent  Greek 
preacher,  said  John  was  baptized  by  putting 
his  hand  in  baptism  on  the  head  of  our 
Lord.  The  Fathers  said  that  all  waters  were 
baptized  by  the  baptism  of  Jesus.  They 
did  not  mean  immersed,  but  consecrated.  Do 
men  now  know  Greek  better  than  the 
Greeks  'i  Would  Scripture  describe  the  one 
baptism  of  the  Spirit  as  a  descent,  a  falling 
upon,  a  pouring  out,  if  a  valid  baptism  was 
the  exact  reverse? 


BAPTISM  BY  THE  SPIRIT.  I'j 

But  this  position  is  strengthened  by  the 
representations  of  our  Lord's  baptism,  in  the 
most  ancient  churches.  In  them  all,  John 
stands  pouring  water  upon  Jesus.  Some  of 
these  pictures  are  believed  to  have  been  made 
in  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries.  Constan- 
tine  and  the  Empress  are  represented  as  sit- 
ting in  a  bath,  while  Eusebius  pours  the 
water  of  baptism.  As  the  Corinthians  ex- 
aggerated the  supper,  so  Constantine  added 
to  the  rite  by  getting  into  a  bath.  But 
what  was  the  essence  of  his  baptism  ?  Surely 
it  was  the  application  of  water  and  pronounc- 
ing the  words  of  consecration — I  baptize 
thee. 

This  position  is  confirmed  also  by  the 
^'Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,"  that 
wonderful  book  compiled,  it  is  supposed, 
about  A.D.  150.  Chapter  vii.  teaches  :  "  Xow 
concerning  baptism,  so  baptize,  speaking  first 
all  these  things,  baptize  into  the  name  of 
the  Father  and  Son  and  Holy  Spirit, 
with  livino-  water.  If  thou  hast  not  living: 
water,  baptize  with  reference  to  other  water ; 
2* 


18  BAPTISM. 

and  if  thou  art  not  able  with  cold,  with 
warm.  If  thou  hast  not  both,  then  pour 
upon  the  head  water  into  the  name  of 
the  Father  and  Son  and  Holy  Spirit. 
And  before  the  baptism,  let  the  baptizer  and 
the  baptized  and  some  others,  if  they  can, 
fast :  Bat  command  the  baptized  to  fast  one 
or  two  days  before/^  Living  water,  John  4 : 
10,  means  water  not  stagnant,  a  type  of 
grace. 

Here  the  instrument,  water,  is  given  in 
the  very  form  used  in  the  New  Testament.  It 
is  en  hudati,  with  water,  not  in,  nor  into  water. 
As  our  Lord  baptized  with  the  Spirit,  so 
John  and  the  twelve  and  the  early  Church 
baptized  ivith  water.  If  the  Spirit  was  poured, 
or  sprinkled,  or  shed  forth,  or  descended, 
then  reason  would  teach  that  the  other  in- 
strument, water,  be  applied  in  like  manner. 
If  not,  then  baptize  has  one  meaning  in  con- 
nection with  the  Spirit  and  an  entirely  oppo- 
site meaning  connected  with  water.  If  not, 
then  things  equal  to  the  same  things  are  not 
equal  to  one  another.     If  not,  then  baptize 


BAPTISM  BY  THE  SPIRIT.  19 

with  the  Spirit  covers  one  set  of  actions, 
as  giving,  pouring,  sprinkling ;  but  with 
water,  an  incongruous  set  of  actions,  as  form 
a  procession,  march  to  some  water,  descend 
into  it,  and  immerse  the  unimmersed  part 
into  the  water.  Surely  there  is  nothing  in 
such  an  ^'  operation  like  pouring  out,  shed- 
ding forth  the  Holy  Spirit.  But  things  equal 
to  the  same  tiling  must  be  equal  to  one  an- 
other. Dr.  Carson  and  friends  have  said  a 
thousand  times,  baptizo  always  means  the 
same  thing.  Some  say  dip;  others  say  im- 
merse, and  others  plunge.  While  they  jostle 
each  other  and  are  all  equally  positive,  yet 
they  all  agree  that  baptizo  ought  to  have  one 
consistent  meaning.  Now,  the  constant  use 
of  it,  in  describing  the  work  of  the  Spirit, 
forbids  any  such  modal  acts  as  marching  to 
the  water,  dipping  in  water.  The  Bible 
teaches  modal  acts  utterly  opposite.  The 
believer  does  not  go  to  the  Spirit,  does  not 
descend  into  the  Spirit,  is  not  immersed  in 
the  Spirit.  But  the  Spirit  descends,  comes, 
falls   upon,   is  poured   out.     Surely  baptizo 


20  BAPTISM, 

cannot  cover  one  set  of  actions  in  spiritual 
baptism  and  a  perfectly  opposite  and  contra- 
dictory set  of  actions  when  water  is  the  in- 
strument. We  hold  our  Baptist  brethren  to 
their  proclamation :  "  Baptizo  has  one  mean- 
ing in  all  literature — in  all  administrations/' 
And  let  them  say  Amen,  when  we  say  that 
in  the  "one  baptism/'  baptizo  means  the  ap- 
plication of  the  Spirit  to  the  candidate,  never 
the  opposite ;  and  in  the  profession  of  spir- 
itual baptism,  the  modal  acts  must  corre- 
spond— the  w^ater  must  be  applied. 

Inferei^ces  : — 

1.  The  great  body  of  Christians  have  ad- 
ministered baptism  scripturally,  when  causing 
water  to  descend. 

2.  "  The  definite  act  theory — putting  one 
under  water'' — is  at  variance  with  all  Scrip- 
ture, which  uses  many  words  to  execute 
baptism. 

3.  The  definition  of  baptism  in  the  Baptist 
Confession,  '^dipping  the  whole  body  under 
water,"  is  wrong.    There  is  no  dipping  under 


BAPTISM  BY  THE  SPIRIT.  21 

the  Spii-it.     There   should    be   none   under 
water. 

4.  Messrs.  Booth  and  Wayland  saying 
baptism  is  "  the  immersion,"  are  in  conflict 
with  the  meaning  of  baptizo  in  Scripture. 

5.  Dr.  Conant  errs  saying  "  baptizo  means 
simply  put  into  or  under  water."  Baptisms 
by  the  Spirit  are  without  water.  The  Greeks 
used  the  word  to  denote  the  influence  of  an 
opiate  and  wine  and  taxes  and  debts  and 
doubts  and  griefs.  What  folly  to  say  it 
means  simply  to  put  under  water.  The  Bible 
has  not  a  record  of  baptism  under  water. 


«^c^i^te^)^ 


CHAPTER   III. 
BAPTIZO — ITS   MEANING. 

THIS  word  occurs  about  eighty  times  in 
the  New  Testament.  It  describes  bap- 
tisms effected  by  the  Spirit — by  John — by 
the  Apostles,  by  Anauias  and  by  Paul. 

Seeing  the  Spirit  poured  out  upon  Corne- 
lius and  friends  made  Peter  say,  ^'  Who  can 
forbid  water  that  these  should  not  be  baptized 
who  have  received  the  Holy  Ghost  as  well 
as  we?"  The  baptism  of  the  Spirit,  then, 
was  the  model  and  the  reason.  The  baptism 
of  Saul,  when  blind  and  fasting  for  three 
days,  was  effected  by  Ananias  coming  and 
saying,  ^^  Why  tarriest  thou ;  arise  and  be 
baptized  :  And,  rising  up,  he  was  baptized." 
Acts  9:18.  This  is  the  literal  translation,  indi- 
cating the  standing  posture  in  Saul's  baptism. 


BAPTIZO—ITS  MEANING.  23 

The  baptism  of  the  eunuch  was  at  some 
water  in  the  desert- way  to  Gaza:  Acts  8. 
But  coming  to  some,  he  said,  "  See,  water ; 
what  doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptized?"  Then 
both  Philip  and  the  eunuch  descended  to 
it,  and  Philip  baptized  him.  Take  bap- 
tism to  be  a  profession  of  the  work  of  the 
Spirit,  then  the  water  was  applied  to  the 
eunuch,  not  the  reverse.  He  had  been  read- 
ing in  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah,  among  other 
things,  that  Jesus  should  sprinkle  many  na- 
tions; sprinkling  for  purification  he  had  seen 
at  Jerusalem.  Did  he  think  of  Jesus  as  our 
High  Priest,  and  would  he  not  wish  to 
profess  the  work  of  our  Lord  by  being 
sprinkled  ?  Had  he  received  the  truth  that 
Christ  washes  us  with  His  own  blood  :  Rev. 
1:5;  and  would  he  think  of  any  other  way 
of  professing  that  "blood  of  sprinkling" 
than  the  way  named  by  Isaiah  and  practiced 
at  Jerusalem? 

Moreover,  consider  the  inconvenience  of 
an  immersion  for  one  who  was  at  once  to 
ascend  his  chariot  to  ride.     And  no  traveler 


24  BAPTISM. 

has  ever  found  in  that  way  water  enough  for 
an  immersion.  There  are  springs,  l)ut  no 
lake  or  river.  The  very  exclamation,  see 
water,  indicates  a  limited  quantity.  This, 
put  with  the  f\ict  that  he  had  seen  the  type 
of  our  high  priest  sprinkle  for  purification 
and  the  fact  that  the  eunuch  was  reading 
the  prophecy  which  said  Jesus  should  sprin- 
kle, makes  it  very  evident  that  the  eunuch 
would  expect  to  be  baptized  as  he  saw  purifi- 
cation effected  at  Jerusalem. 

The  baptism  of  three  thousand  at  Pente- 
cost, how  was  it?  The  Apostles  saw  the 
multitudes  baptized  by  the  Spirit  falling  on 
them.  Could  they  think  of  professing  that 
work  without  causing  water  to  descend  ?  If 
Jesus  baptized  by  pouring  out  the  Spirit,  the 
apostles  should  baptize  by  pouring  the  water. 

Besides,  consider  the  improbability  of  the 
hated  disciples  being  allowed  to  use  the  city 
reservoirs  !  Besides  the  hatred  of  the  new 
sect,  how  unlikely  that  a  people  so  fastidious 
about  purifications  should  allow  three  thou- 
sand to  be  plunged  into  their  fountains  ? 


BAPTIZO—ITS  MEANING.  25 

If  baptism  can  be  executed  sometimes  by 
immersion,  yet  there  were  no  conditions  for 
such  a  baptism  in  that  mountain  city  under 
the  control  of  bitter  enemies.  But  baptism 
is  executed  in  pouring  out  the  Spirit  and 
sending  tongues  of  fire  upon  the  heads  of 
the  disciples.  So  said  John  and  Jesus.  How 
improbable  that  the  twelve  would  have  this 
work  professed  by  an  immersion  which  had 
nothing  in  common  with  what  w^as  promised 
and  with  what  they  had  seen  ! 

When  Jesus  said,  ye  shall  be  baptized  with 
the  Holy  Ghost,  he  meant  that  very  work  of 
Pentecost.  Is  baptism  then  essentially  the 
act  of  putting  under  water  ?  Joel  and  John 
and  Jesus  and  Peter  testify  to  a  baptism  wdiere 
the  Spirit  fell  and  where  tongues  of  fire  sat. 
Are  they  not  sufficient  witnesses  ? 

1  Cor.  10  :  2  teaches  that  all  Israel  was 
baptized  into  Moses,  with  the  cloud  and  with 
the  sea.  The  same  preposition  en  used  here 
occurs  in  the  promise,  he  shall  baptize  you, 
en,  with  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  cloud  and 
the  sea  were  the  instruments,  not  the  receiving 
3 


26  BAPTISM. 

element.     The  cloud  stood  behind  and  the 
waters  of  the  sea  were  walls  on  each  side. 
Here  was  a  baptism  without  water — Baptist 
authority    says   ^'  a    dry    dip."     But  there 
was    no    dip — but    a     march — the    people, 
it   is  thrice    recorded,    passed    through    on 
dry  ground.     Ex.  14:  22,  29,  and  15:  19. 
Poly  bins  says  Alexander's  army  was  baptized 
all  day  marching  througli  a  lake — Israel  was 
baptized  marching  all  night  in  a  waterless 
sea.     Both   Alexander's    army    and    Israel 
would  have  perished  in  an  immersion.     The 
miracle  of  the  cloud  and  the  sea  moved  Israel 
to  believe  the  Lord  and  His  servant  Moses. 
Ex.  13.     Here  was  baptism  of  parents  and 
children   that   preceded    faith   and    induced 
faith.     And  this  baptism  the  Apostle  of  the 
Gentiles  commends.     Did  Paul  then   know 
that  baptism  meant  the  definite  act  of  putting 
a  believer  into  water  ?    He  records  a  baptism 
without  water  that  made  the  people  believe. 
1  John  5  :  8  says  the  Spirit  and  the  water 
and  the  blood  bear  witness,  and  these  three 
agree  in  one.     The   Spirit  is  shed    forth — 


BAPTIZO—ITS  MEANING.  27 

poured  out — the  blood  is  sprinkled.  Now 
how  can  water  iu  an  immersion  agree  with 
the  Spirit  or  the  blood  ?  Immersion  makes 
the  water  contradict  the  mode  of  applying 
both.  Does  Jesus  shed  His  blood  and  pour 
out  His  Spirit  ?  To  agree  with  that  work,  then, 
water  should  be  applied  also.  The  Greek 
Bible  used  by  the  Apostles  says  Nebuchadnez- 
zar was  baptized  with  the  dew.  Origen,  one 
of  the  most  learned  of  the  Fathers,  says 
that  Elijah's  altar  was  baptized.  Neither 
Nebuchadnezzar  nor  the  altar  were  dipped. 
Did  the  seventy  who  translated  the  Hebrew 
into  Greek  understand  Greek  ?  Was  Origen 
behind  the  times  to  think  and  call  Elijah's 
altar  baptized  ?  How  absurd  to  say  "  no 
immersion,  no  baptism."  The  Greek  Bible, 
the  Greek  Fathers  and  the  Greek  Classics, 
with  the  cloud  and  the  sea,  thunder  their 
negative  to  the  monstrous  statement. 

Luke  11:  38,  Jesus  was  invited  to  dine 
with  a  Pharisee  who  marvelled  that  before 
eating  he  did  not  baptize  (E  baptiza).  Mark 
7  :  2,  has  the  same  charge  against  the  disci- 


28  BAPTISM. 

pies  for  eating  with  hands  unwashed.  Tra- 
dition required  that  one  should  cleanse  him- 
self oft  or  diligently  or  up  to  the  elbows. 
(See  margin,  verse  3.)  Yea,  they  eat  not 
when  they  come  from  the  market  except  they 
baptize  themselves  (baptizontai).  The  Syriac 
Bible,  for  hundreds  of  years,  used  rantizon- 
tai — sprinkled  themselves.  That  early  church 
interchanged  these  words.  And  Mark  7  :  4. 
records  further,  that  the  Pharisees  held  to 
baptism  (baptismous)  of  caps  and  pots  and 
brazen  vessels  and  tables.  Tradition  required 
the  Jews  to  purify  themselves  and  dishes 
before  eating.  Mark  uses  baptizo  and  bap- 
tismos  to  denote  that  purification.  John  13 
uses  niphso  to  describe  the  washing  of  the 
disciples'  feet,  to  denote  that  they  were  clean. 
John  13 :  10.  That  washing  was  not  an 
immersion.  Tables  were  not  immersed  for 
purification.  But  Mark  says  their  purifica- 
tion was  a  baptism. 

Heb.  9:10,  informs  us  that  in  the  Jewish 
service  there  were  divers  baptisms.  They 
could  not  be  divers   (Greek  diaphorois,  di- 


BAPTIZO-ITS  MEANING.  29 

verse,  different)  if  they  were  a  simple  immer- 
sion. Baptisms  were  administered  in  different 
ways  in  the  Jewish  ceremonies.  There  is  not 
an  immersion  among  them,  and  yet  they  are 
baptisms  (baptismos).  Heb.  9  specifies  bap- 
tism by  sprinkling  blood  and  water  and 
ashes — affirming  that  they  purified  the  flesh 
as  Christ's  blood  purges  the  conscience. 
Num.  19  :  16-20,  directs  how  to  purify  one 
defiled  from  the  dead.  Take  running  water 
and  put  it  to  the  ashes  of  the  burnt  heifer 
and  sprinkle  the  impure  for  his  cleansing. 
Josephus,  4 :  4,  6,  calls  this  ceremony  bap- 
tizing from  the  dead.  Did  Josephus  under- 
stand the  Jewish  religion  ?  Is  putting  run- 
ning water  to  the  ashes  of  an  heifer  and 
sprinkling  the  unclean  an  immersion  ?  Jo- 
sephus says  it  was  a  baptism.  Where  wash- 
ing the  body  was  part  of  the  ceremony  of 
purification,  still  the  sprinkling  was  the  most 
essential  thing.  See  Num.  19.  And  their 
washings  for  forty  years  in  the  desert  were 
not  and  could  not  be  immersions.     In  the 


3* 


30  BAPTISM. 

whole  history  of  the  humau  family  washing 
is  usually  without  immersion. 

The  New  Testament  uses  about  eighty 
verbs  ending  in  zo.  Like  baptizo,  they  have 
many  meanings.  Katharizo  is  translated  to 
purge,  to  cleanse,  to  purify ;  euaggelizo,  by 
preach  and  five  other  words ;  emphanizo,  by 
show  and  nineteen  other  words ;  chorizo,  by 
put  and  thirteen  other  words.  Why  must 
baptizo  be  limited  ?  Dr.  Conant,  it  is  said, 
uses  about  forty  words  to  translate  the  classic 
baptizo.  How  wrong,  then,  to  affirm  that 
this  word  in  baptism  must  mean  only  an 
immersion !  Baptizing  from  the  dead  did 
not  mean  an  immersion ;  baptizing  tables 
did  not  mean  an  immersion ;  baptizing  Eli- 
jah's altar  was  not  an  immersion.  Divers 
baptisms  were  not  all  immersions.  If  Moses 
baptized  almost  all  things  by  sprinkling 
blood  and  ashes  and  water,  what  folly  to 
affect  a  wisdom  superior  to  Moses,  saying, 
"  No  immersion  no  baptism" !  Bathing  in 
the  crowded  camps  and  in  the  waterless 
desert  could  not  have  been  an  immersion. 


BAPTIZO—ITS  3IEAN1NG.  31 

Seirax  31 :  30.  Being  baptized  from  the 
dead  and  again  touching  it,  what  profit  is  the 
(loatron)  washing?  Here  washing  equals 
baptizing.  The  most  important  part  of  this 
purification  we  have  seen  was  sprinkling.- 
Seirax  calls  it  a  baptism.  Rev.  1  :  b,  Christ 
hath  washed  us  from  our  sins  loith  (en,  same 
form  John  used)  his  blood.  Eph.  5 :  26, 
Christ  cleanses  the  Church  with  the  washing 
of  water  by  the  w^ord.  This  (loutron)  wash- 
ing-baptism is  by  the  word.  There  is  no 
immersion  in  the  word. 

But  the  appeal  is  carried  from  the  court  of 
Scripture  to  the  usage  of  the  Greeks.  To 
that  court  we  will  go.  Look  at  the  defini- 
tion of  baptizo  in  twenty-two  lexicons.  One 
of  the  most  common  is  merge.  This  is  its 
meaning  w^ien  followed  by  the  preposition 
iiito.  This  is  the  force  of  the  word  when 
the  baptism  is  into  Christ,  into  Moses,  into 
Paul,  into  the  Church.  It  is  not  a  plunge 
into  Christ,  not  an  immersion  in  His  blood, 
not  a  dip  into  the  Church.  If  we  were 
merged   in  water  as  we  are  in   Christ,  we 


32  BAPTISM. 

should  be  devoted  to  and  permanently  fixed 
in  the  water.  One  stream  is  merged  in  an- 
other when  it  unites  and  flows  in  the  same 
channel.  There  is  no  merging  of  believers 
with  the  Jordan.  One  title  is  merged  in 
another  when  it  is  combined  in  the  one  owner. 
But  immersion  has  nothing  like  such  merg- 
ings  of  streams  and  titles.  One  stream  is 
not  dipped  in  another;  it  is  united  and 
merged  in  the  other. 

Baptizo  is  also  translated  bathe  and  wash. 
These  verbs  are  executed  by  washing  the 
body  or  the  feet  or  the  hands.  They  were 
common  among  the  Jews  from  Sinai  to  the 
Jordan.  There  are  no  lakes  or  rivers  in  the 
whole  route.  Such  a  purity  for  worship, 
Heb.  X,,  requires,  "  Having  your  bodies 
washed  with  pure  water.''  An  immersion, 
with  the  clothes  on,  is  no  more  washing  the 
body  with  pure  water  than  is  rolling  it  in 
the  street.  A  real  w^ashing  this  text  re- 
quires.    A  dipping  is  not  obedience  to  it. 

Baptizo  is  also  translated  from  the  classics 
by  immerse.     But  we  see  that  this  meaning 


BAPTIZO—ITS  MEANING.  33 

agrees  neither  with  Jewish  washings,  nor 
traditional  purifications,  nor  with  the  bap- 
tism of  the  Spirit.  While  it  is  one  of  many 
definitions  of  the  word,  we  see  it  is  entirely 
inadequate  to  answer  for  baptizo  in  its  reli- 
gious uses. 

But  how  unreasonable  is  it  to  pitch  upon 
one  meaning  out  of  more  than  a  dozen  and 
say,  they  are  not  in  the  church  of  Christ 
who  will  not  immerse  ?  Most  dictionaries 
give  from  six  to  sixteen  definitions  of  bap- 
tizo. Who  has  the  authority  to  limit  us  to 
one  meaning  ?  As  a  mild  specimen  of  this 
dogmatism,  take  Prof.  Curtis,  He  gives 
Passow's  definitions  *^dip  repeatedly,  dip  un- 
der, bathe,  steep,  wet,  pour  upon  ;  2.  dip, 
draw  water ;  3.  N.  T.,  baptize.''  He  then 
concludes,  "Baptizo  means  dip,  sink,  im- 
merse and  nothing  else,  and  the  command,  to 
be  baptized  is  to  be  immersed,  if  it  is  any- 
thing." But  why  does  not  Professor  Curtis 
say  the  command  is  to  sink.  Passow  says 
sink.  W^hy  not  say  it  is  to  steep  or  to  wet 
or   to   pour   upon  ?      Passow   says    baptizo 


34  BAPTIS3I. 

means  any  of  these.  How  arbitrary  is  it  to 
seize  on  one  and  unchurch  all  who  take  to 
wet  or  to  pour  upon  as  a  good  meaning  ! 

Liddell  and  Scott  define  baptizo,  ^'  dip  in 
or  under  water,  sink,  bathe,  soak  in  wine, 
fall  into  debt,  puzzle  with  questions ;  2, 
draw  water  or  wine ;  3,  baptize.'^  Suppose  a 
sect  should  take  puzzle  as  the  meaning,  and 
insist  that  asking  questions  executed  baptism. 
Or  suppose  a  sect  took  soak  in  wine,  what  a 
nice  religion  that  would  make  ?  Or  take 
falling  into  debt  as  a  baptism,  how  very 
pious  would  many  people  and  churches  be 
found  ?  The  truth  is,  baptizo  denotes  a 
change  by  some  controlling  influence  as  wine, 
an  opiate,  tears,  water,  taxes,  griefs,  etc.  To 
be  baptized  is  to  come  under  the  influence  of 
that  which  baptizes.  In  ritual  purification 
it  is  with  water  to  be  devoted  to  God,  The 
quantity  has  no  more  influence  in  effecting 
a  baptism  with  water  than  the  length  of  the 
sentence  has  in  a  baptism  by  question.  A 
tax  of  fifty  dollars  may  baptize  one  as  easily 
as   a   tax  of  a  thousand  another     A  small 


BAPTIZO—ITS  MEANING.  35 

seal  may  authenticate  a  deed  as  well  as  one 
spread  over  half  a  sheet.  The  water  is  a 
sign  of  spiritual  purification,  a  profession  of 
the  work  of  the  Spirit,  of  cleansing  by  the 
blood  of  sprinkling,  a  token  of  the  ''  one 
baptism." 

Robinson's  Dictionary  defines  baptizo, 
^^  dip  in,  sink,  immerse,  draw  water,  wash, 
lave,  cleanse,  middle  and  passive,  voice  wash 
one's  self,  i.  e.,  hands  or  persons,  perform  ablu- 
tion. 2.  Baptize,  administer  baptism."  Of 
these  various  meanings,  who  would  not  pre- 
fer wash  to  denote  purity  ?  Robinson  gives 
"  dip  in  "  as  one  meaning.  When  the  Bap- 
tist Confession  was  made,  they  seized  upon 
this  meaning.  But  Booth,  a  Baptist,  writes, 
"This  makes  our  sentiment  and  practice 
ridiculous."  Yet  the  ridiculous  dip  is  the 
practice  under  the  name  of  immerse. 

Deipnon,  supper,  in  Greek,  was  the  prin- 
cipal meal.  Yet  the  Holy  Spirit  calls  the 
memorial  of  our  Lord's  death  a  supper. 
The  Corinthians  made  a  feast  of  it,  taking 
the  word  in  its  widest  meaning.     They  were 


36  BAPTISM. 

corrected  for  their  literal  ity.  But  how  much 
like  them  are  those  who  make  the  other 
sacrament  an  immersion  ?  But  if  this  ex- 
treme meaning  must  be  taken,  as  in  the 
dark  ages,  let  the  washing  be  thorough,  as 
then,  men  washing  nude  men,  and  women 
their  companions,  before  the  minister  sprin- 
kled the  candidate,  as  then  was  done,  saying, 
I  baptize  thee.  With  them,  as  among  the 
Jews,  the  washing  was  a  preparation  for  the 
more  essential  sprinkling. 

The  dictionaries,  we  see,  decide  that  bapti- 
zo  has  many  meanings.  We  trust  it  is  evi- 
dent enough  that  we  are  not  bound  by  any 
dictionary  to  execute  baptism  by  any  partic- 
ular word  of  the  sixteen  given  as  English 
equivalents.  Robinson's  last  definition  is 
baptize.  This  is  the  word  in  the  Latin,  Italic, 
French  and  English  Bibles.  Why  try  to 
put  any  other  in  its  room  ?  Dr.  Carson,  the 
most  able  Baptist  writer,  after  saying  baptizo 
signifies  "dip,  never  expressing  anything 
but  mode,''  added  wisely,  "  I  have  all  the 
lexicographers     and    commentators    against 


BAPTIZO-ITS  3TEANING.  37 

me/'  Dictionaries  give  from  six  to  sixteen 
meanings  to  the  word.  Baptist  authors  write 
out  these  meanings  and  then  found  their  creed 
and  practice  on  one  of  them  ;  and  then  affirm, 
if  any  other  meaning  is  allowed,  it  is  such  a 
willful  sin  that  it  excludes  you  from  the 
church  of  God !  The  Fathers  said  there 
were  as  many  kinds  of  baptism  as  of  doc- 
trines. The  Holy  Spirit  says  there  were  dif- 
fering baptisms  in  Israel's  service.  But  now 
we  must  believe  that  the  Holy  Spirit  erred  in 
saying  there  were  divers  baptisms  ;  diction- 
aries erred  also,  for  baptizo  cannot  be  per- 
formed except  in  one  way. 

We  have  examined  baptizo  in  dictionaries. 
They  do  not  limit  the  meaning  to  immerse. 
Robinson  and  others  say  it  means  to  draw, 
water.  May  we  seize  on  that  definition  and 
make  baptism  the  act  of  drawing  water? 
Plow  much  better  his  other  definition,  to 
cleanse,  to  wash  ?  Then  the  application  of 
water  harmonizes  with  the  cleansing  pro- 
fessed. Our  Lord  washed  the  disciples'  feet 
to  denote    that   they  were  clean.  John  xiii. 

4 


38  BAPTISM. 

This  was  not  an  immersion.  Pilate  washed 
his  hands  to  denote  innocence.  This  was  no 
immersion.  We  have  Old  Testament  and 
New  Testament,  we  have  dictionaries,  com- 
mentators and  churches — we  have  Greeks, 
Romans  and  Jews  all  agreeing  that  baptism 
is  a  ceremonial  washing.  Why  divide  the 
kingdom  for  another  meaning  ? 

TAKE    A    BIBLE    READING. 

1  Pet.  1  :  2,  Elect  unto  obedience  and 
sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ. 
1  John  1  ;  7,  The  blood  of  Jesus  Christ 
cleanseth  us  from  all  sin.  Heb.  9  :  14,  How 
much  more  shall  the  blood  of  Christ  purge 
your  conscience  from  dead  works  to  serve 
the  living  God  ?  What  does  Jesus  do  ?  He 
sprinkles  His  blood — He  washes  us  from  our 
sins — cleanses  from  all  sin — purges  the  con- 
science. What  did  John  the  Baptist  call  this 
work  ?  Is  he  good  authority  ?  John  called 
it  a  baptism.  AYliat  did  Jesus  call  the  out- 
pouringof  the  Spirit  upon  the  one  hundred 
and  twenty  ?  Is  He  a  credible  witness  ? 
He  called  it  a  baptism.     He  used  baptizo  to 


BAPTIZO—ITS  3IEANING.  39 

describe  that  work.  Is  baptism  then  a  dip- 
ping and  nothing  but  dipping  ?  Is  the  Holy 
Ghost  in  fault  in  calling  purification  with 
the  Spirit  and  with  blood  a  baptism  ?  Must 
we  go  blindly  against  all  Scripture  and  all 
learning  to  enter  the  fold  of  Christ  ? 

Joseph  us  18:5,  2,  writes  of  John's  bap- 
tism, ^'  The  washing  with  water  would  be 
acceptable  to  God,  if  they  made  use  of  it,  not 
in  order  to  the  putting  away  or  the  remission 
of  some  sins  only,  but  for  the  purification  of 
the  body,  supposing  still  that  the  soul  w^as 
thoroughly  purified  by  righteousness/'  What 
did  water  signify  in  John's  baptisms  ?  Jo- 
sephus  says  the  purification.  Josephus,  is 
there  any  purification  by  immersion  in  the 
laws  of  Moses?  None.  Josephus,  what 
was  Jewish  law  for  purifying  ?  Bathing  the 
body  and  sprinkling  the  water  of  separation  ? 
Num.19.    Josephus  did  not  understand  John 

to  sing, 

"  Ho,  every  son  and  daughter, 
Here's  the  gospel  in  the  water." 

Prof  Strong's  able  work  on  Theology  is 


40  BAPTISM. 

marred  by  the  assertion  of  such  absurd  state- 
ments as  ^^  Christian  baptism  is  the  immer- 
sion of  a  believer  in  water.''  ^^  The  mode  is 
immersion  only.''  ''Christ's  baptism  was 
consecration  to  death."  Jesus  said  it  was  to 
fulfill  all  righteousness.  He  therein  devoted 
himself  to  His  life-work,  not  to  death.  True 
death  was  the  end  of  that  work.  But  it  is 
to  contradict  the  record  to  say  His  baptism 
was    consecration    to    death. 

Prof  Strong  affirms  that  ''  baptism  denot- 
ing influence  without  intus-position  (immer- 
sion) is  a  figment  of  the  imagination.'' 

How  can  a  scholar  write  such  a  sentence, 
when  he  knows  that  the  Greeks  used  baptizo 
to  denote  the  influence  of  wine  and  debts 
and  taxes  and  sleep  and  vice  and  opiates. 
Is  it  a  figment  of  the  imagination  that  wine 
baptizes  without  an  immersion,  or  that  sleep 
stupefies,  or  an  opiate  affects  one  without  an 
immersion  in  the  stupefying  drug  ?  When 
the  Greeks  for  a  thousand  years  used  baptizo 
to  denote  a  change  produced  in  the  mind  by 
grief  and  by  fears,  and  by  questions  and  by 


BAPTIZO—ITS  lUEANlNG.  41 

debts  and  by  taxes^  what  folly  is  it  to  affirm 
that  baptizo  means  an  immersion !  Prof. 
Strong  relies  for  proof  upon  the  partial  ad- 
mission of  some  who  are  not  Baptists.  Judge 
how  much  such  admissions  are  worth  against 
the  texts  and  dictionaries  before  quoted.  We 
say  partial  admissions,  because  many  did  not 
intend  to  give  full  sanction  to  immersion, 
but,  like  the  dictionaries,  to  say  that  one 
meaning  of  baptizo  is  to  immerse.  Prof. 
Strong  quotes  Dean  Stanley;  yet  Dean  Stan- 
ley told  the  Baptist  brethren,  in  New  York, 
that  the  Church  wisely  changed  the  practice 
of  immersion  of  the  dark  ages.  Prof.  Strong 
quotes  De  Stourdza,  saying  baptizo  means  to 
plunge.  Then  he  concludes  it  means  nothing 
but  to  immerse.  To  plunge  is  not  to  immerse. 
If  he  plunged  candidates,  the  society  for  the 
prevention  of  cruelty  would  soon  interfere. 

But  it  seems  the  great  mind  of  Dr.  Strong, 
like  others,  can  quote  meanings  of  baptizo 
conflicting  with  immersion  and  then  compla- 
cently assume,  against  all  the  Greeks,  baptizo 
means  to  immerse  only.     Prof  Strong  says 

4* 


42  BAPTISM. 

that  baptisai  without  intus- position  (immer- 
sion) is  a  figment  of  the  imagination.  The 
New  Testament  speaks  of  the  baptism  of 
tables,  of  divers  baptisms,  of  the  baptism  ot 
Israel  marching  on  dry  ground.  Were  these 
baptisms  by  immersion?  Surely  no  man, 
unless  his  eyes  were  filled  with  water,  could 
so  see  it. 

The  New  Testament  very  often  speaks  of 
the  work  of  the  Spirit  as  a  baptism.  We 
have  seen  that  the  modal  acts  of  this  baptism 
are  utterly  opposite  to  immersion.  He  de- 
scends, is  poured  out,  comes  as  rain  and  as 
dew.  Nebuchadnezzar  was  wet  with  the  dew; 
baptized  is  the  word  in  the  Greek  Bible  used 
by  our  Lord.  Prof  Strong  translates  "  bap- 
tized in  water  and  in  the  Holy  Spirit.^'  En^ 
in  the  New  Testament,  is  used  over  three 
hundred  times  before  words  to  denote  instru- 
mentality. 

Christians  are  evangelized  by  the  Spirit,  not 
in  ;  sanctified  by,  not  in;  filled  with,  not  in, 
led  by,  not  in,  justified  by,  not  in.  How  it 
contradicts   the  usage  of    Scripture  to  say, 


BAPTIZO—ITS  MEANING.  43 

baptized  in,  not  63/ the  Spirit?  Read  1  Cor. 
12:  13,  with  this  idea.  "  For  in  one  spirit  are 
we  all  baptized  into  one  body.'^  Was  it  in 
or  by  one  Spirit,  the  baptism  was  effected  ? 
What  strange  changes  immersion  requires? 
When  the  preposition  en  is  used  over  three 
hundred  times,  translated  by,  or  through,  or 
with ;  yet  immersion  must  make  it  violate 
this  usage. 

Prof.  Strong  summons  Dr.  Coleman  as 
witness  that  immersion  was  the  practice  of 
the  early  churches.  Hear  him,  page  367  : 
'"The  Church  soon  lost  the  spirituality  of  her 
religion  and  the  simplicity  of  her  ordinances, 
in  endless  strifes  about  forms  and  ceremonies. 
Perhaps  the  first  of  all  her  departures  from 
the  institutions  of  Christ  and  His  apostles 
was  to  insist  upon  immersion  as  emblematic 
of  the  suffusion  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the 
only  valid  mode  of  administering  the  ordi- 
nance. Certain  it  is  that  this  soon  became 
the  prevailing  mode  of  baptizing.  Other 
changes  soon  followed,''  etc.  How  many  wit- 
nesses like  this  would  establish  immersion  ? 


44  BAPTIS3L 

That  we  are  not  shut  up  to  translate  bap- 
tizo  by  immerse,  is  manifest  also  from  such 
facts  as  these  : 

1.  Some  dictionaries  do  not  give  immerse 
as  its  meaning.  Could  this  be  its  most  es- 
sential meaning,  and  lexicographers  not 
know  it? 

2.  Comparing  the  frequency  of  its  occur- 
rence, we  see  that  dictionaries  give  the  pref- 
erence to  other  words.  Twenty  of  them  give 
immerse  four  times  ;  baptize,  six  times ;  per- 
form ablutions,  eight  times ;  merge,  eight 
times ;  lave,  fourteen  times.  Immerse  can- 
not be  its  most  essential  meaning,  else  the 
dictionaries  would  give  it  oftener.  A  merg- 
ing is  not  an  immersion,  else  why  do  they 
give  merge?  To  perform  ablutions,  with 
Jews  and  pagans,  differed  from  an  immer- 
sion. Else  why  give  this  meaning  eight 
times  to  immerse  four?  To  lave,  the  world 
over,  is  oftener  performed  without  than  with 
a  dipping.  If  baptizo  meant  essentially  im- 
merse, why  do  dictionaries  give  so  many 
other  definitions  ?     See  also  the  varied  uses 


BAPTIZO-ITS  3IEANING.  45 

of  baptizo.  The  Gi^eeks  said  men  were  bap- 
tized with  wine,  debts,  taxes,  questions,  opi- 
ates, sea,  millv,  fire,  sword,  spirit,  grief,  dis- 
ease, oil,  sins,  sleep,  vice.  \Yhat  did  they 
mean  by  such  baptisms  ?  Did  they  mean 
that  men  were  immersed  in  wine  and  swords 
and  oil  and  opiates  ?  Nay  ;  but  they  meant 
to  indicate  the  influence  from  these  agents. 
So  baptism  by  the  Spirit  means  His  influence 
upon  us.  So  baptism  with  water  means  de- 
votion by  its  ritual  use  to  God.  Baptized  by 
wine,  taxes  and  griefs  means  affected  by  their 
influence.  Baptized  into  the  death  of  Christ 
means  coming  under  the  influence  of  his 
death,  so  as  to  die  unto  sin  and  live  unto 
righteousness.  Baptized  into  the  name  of 
the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost  is  to  be 
devoted  to  the  triune  Jehovah.  The  water 
of  baptism  is,  then,  a  symbol  of  the  work  of 
the  Spirit  applying  the  blood  that  washes  us 
from  our  sins.  All  sects  agreed  in  England 
definjng  baptism  to  signify  and  seal  our  in- 
grafting into  Christ  and  our  partaking  of  the 
benefits  of  the   covenant  of  grace,  and  our 


46  BAPTISM. 

engagement  to  be  the  Lord's.  As  our  Baptist 
brethren  make  baptizo  their  stronghold,  we 
turn  on  it  definitions  given  by  Greek  diction- 
aries. Suidas,  of  the  tenth  century,  gives 
pluno,  to  wash,  as  the  essential  meaning. 

Gases,  a  member  of  the  Greek  Church,  in 
his  large  dictionary  in  two  volumes,  defines 
baptizo  by  three  Latin  words  :  1,  Brecho,  to 
wet,  to  bedew,  to  moisten  ;  2,  Lavo,  to  wash, 
to  bathe  ;  3,  Antleo,  to  draw,  to  pump  water. 

How  true  was  the  confession  of  Dr.  Car- 
son, "  I  have  all  the  lexicographers  and 
commentators  against  me.''  Yes,  the  Greeks 
give  no  aid  to  the  men  that  assume  immerse 
as  the  essential  meaning  of  baptizo.  They 
do  not  give  immergo,  immerse,  as  even  one 
of  its  meanings  !  How  utterly  impossible  is 
it  that  immerse  is  its  most  essential  mean- 
ing if  a  quarto  Greek  lexicon  did  not  record 
it  !  How  wonderfully  wise  have  men  become 
that  can  define  Greek  better  than  men  that 
spoke  Greek — better  than  men  that  >vrote 
the  dictionary  of  their  native  tongue! 


CHAPTER   IV. 
BAPTIZO    EN BAPTIZE   IN   AND    WITH. 

BAPTIZO  en — with  places,  means  baptize 
in,  as  Enon,  Salim,  Bethabara,  the  Jor- 
dan, beyond  Jordan,  and  wilderness.  These 
names  of  places,  except  in  the  river  Jordan, 
forbid  the  idea  of  immersion.  And  when  im- 
mersion is  eliminated  from  baptism  in  so  many 
places  it  is  reasonable  to  understand  in  the 
Jordan  means  also  the  place,  not  the  manner 
of  baptism.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  Gospels' 
using  two  other  prepositions  as  well  as  en. 
In  Matt.  3  :  13,  the  record  is,  "then  came 
Jesus  from  Galilee  '^  (epi)  upon  Jordan.  Mark 
1 :  9  has  (eis)  at  or  to  Jordan.  If  we  render 
it  to  Jordan,  it  will  respond  then  to  "  came,'' 
preceding.  If  we  read  it  at  or  in,  then  it 
will  denote  the  place.     These  places,  except 

47 


48  BAPTISM. 

in  the  Jordan,  exclude  immersion.  And  in 
some  seasons  an  immersion  is  impossible  in 
the  Jordan.  A  dear  Baptist  brother  was 
greatly  offended  when  a  traveler  told  us  the 
Jordan  was  only  about  two  feet  deep  when 
he  waded  it.     Why  ? 

But  Baptizo  en  means  '^baptize  with/' 
when  used  with  the  baptizing  instrument — 
as  water,  Holy  Spirit,  cloud  and  sea.  1  Cor. 
10:2,  baptized  en — with — the  cloud  and  with 
the  sea.  It  is  the  same  form  as  in  the  gos- 
pels. The  Bible  has  no  instance  of  m  water. 
It  is  always  with  water.  Some  texts  omit 
the  preposition,  using  only  the  instrumental 
dative  (hudati)  with  water.  If  immersion  in 
water  was  the  only  right  baptism,  then  the 
Scripture  is  wrong  in  using  the  instrumental 
dative !  At  least,  we  ought  to  find  one  record 
of  such  a  baptism,  if  such  only  is  valid. 
Bible  baptisms  are  with  the  Spirit  poured 
out,  or  with  water  to  profess  it,  or  with  the 
sea  on  either  hand,  or  with  the  cloud  in  the 
rear  while  the  feet  of  Israel  marched  on  dry 


BAPTIZO  EN— IN  AND  WITH. 


49 


ground.  How  perfectly  and  utterly  we  re- 
verse the  very  letter  of  Scripture  if  we  affirm 
that  these  baptisms  were  "  immersions  in  or 
under  water." 


CHAPTER    V. 
BAPTIZO  EIS — BAPTIZE   INTO. 

THESE  words  mark  the  result  of  baptism. 
Baptized  into  Christ's  death  means  that 
we  share  the  benefits  of  that  death.  Bap- 
tized into  Christ's  body  means  that  we  are 
made  members  of  His  body.  Gal.  3  :  27, 
the  baptized  into  Christ  have  put  on  Christ. 
They  are  in  Him,  having  His  righteousness. 
Baptized  into  forgiveness  means  the  state  of 
forgiveness.  Baptized  into  the  remission  of 
sins  and  into  repentance  and  into  Paul  and 
into  Moses  are  expressions  of  the  state  of 
the  baptized  towards  Moses  and  Paul  and 
repentance. 

The  Bible  has  no  record  of  baptized  into 
water.  Eis  hudor  is  not  found  in  the  Bible. 
But  our  immersion   brethren  in  thought  and 

60 


BAPTIZO  EIS— BAPTIZE  INTO.  51 

intention  and  in  practice  always  insert  into 
water.  Is  it  not  an  unwarrantable  license  to 
add  into  water  when  Scripture  never  uses  the 
words?  If  immersion  into  water  was  the 
sine  qua  non  of  baptism,  surely  we  should 
have  had  one  example.  Our  brethren  disa- 
gree about  the  meaning  of  the  prepositions 
used  with  baptizo  as  well  as  about  the  verb 
itself.  Some  says  eis  means  in  ;  some,  into  ; 
others,  unto  ;  others,  in  reference  to.  While 
they  contend  with  each  other  for  diverse 
meanings  for  the  verb  and  for  the  preposi- 
tions, yet  they  agree  that  one  must  be  covered 
to  the  last  hair  with  water  in  order  to  a  valid 
baptism.  And  all  this  without  an  instance 
of  it  in  the  diverse  baptisms  of  Scripture. 
Baptism  into  Christ^s  death,  that  great  work 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  belittled  to  make  it 
a  profession  of  his  death  and  absurdly  the 
candidate  is  assured  that  his  submission  re- 
presents Christ  on  the  cross ! 


CHAPTER    VI. 
BAPTISMOS. 

THIS  word  is  used  four  times.  In  Mark 
7 :  it  means  the  ceremonial  purifica- 
tion of  pots,  cups  and  tables.  In  Heb.  6  : 
2,  it  is  used  with  doctrine,  as  if  doctrine 
qualified  baptisms,  just  as  repentance  did 
in  John's  ministry.  The  doctrines  mentioned 
just  before  were  repentance  and  faith.  Heb. 
9  :  10  means  ritual  purifications  in  Jewish 
service.  Among  these  ablutions  it  was  re- 
quired that  one  bathe  his  body,  wash  his 
garments  and  be  sprinkled  with  the  water  of 
separation.  Nu.  19,  But  there  is  no  im- 
mersion in  Judaism.  Baptismos  gives  no 
support  to  the  theory, — no  dipping,  no  bap- 
tism. 


52 


CHAPTER    VII. 
BAPTISMA. 

THIS  word  is  used  twenty-two  times.  It 
describes  the  ministry  of  John,  as  when 
the  Pharisees  came  to  John's  baptism.  They 
came  to  more  than  a  dipping.  It  also  de- 
scribes the  suffering  of  our  Lord.  His 
agony  in  Gethsemane — His  death  on  Calvary 
were  infinitely  more  than  an  immersion  in 
water.  Baptisma  as  John's  ministry  and  bap- 
tisma  as  Christ's  sufferings  were  very  different 
things.  Is  baptisma  then  a  covering  with 
water  ?  The  Fathers  used  this  word  to  de- 
scribe martyrdom.  They  often  coveted 
this  baptism.  Did  they  mean  an  immersion 
that  should  strangle  them  ?  Yet  no  idea 
was  more  common  with  these  Greek  Fathers 
than  that  their  blood  in  martyrdom  baptized 
them.  A  baptisma  of  blood  was  where  blood 
6*  53 


54  BAPTISM. 

was  shed  in  any  way.  Baptisma  into  the 
death  of  Christ,  Rom.  6  :  4,  was  not  a  bap- 
tism when  Christ  died,  but  a  union  with 
Him  in  the  merits  of  His  death  now  effected 
by  the  Holy  Spirit.  There  is  no  record  of 
baptisma  in  or  into  water.  And  the  opera- 
tion of  the  Spirit  baptizing  us  into  Christ 
has  in  it  nothing  like  an  immersion.  There 
is  no  correspondence  in  time,  state  or  man- 
ner between  the  Spirit's  work  and  a  dipping. 
Every  Greek  noun,  preposition  and  verb  re- 
fuses to  connect  baptism  with  immersion. 
They  all  utterly  repudiate  any  communion 
with  the  dipping  theory. 


CHAPTER    VIII. 
IMMEKSION.       WHY   INTRODUCED? 

PURIFICATION  under  the  Old  Testa- 
ment was  usually  effected  by  sprinkling 
ashes,  water  or  blood.  Priests  were  purified 
by  washing  hands  and  feet  at  the  door  of 
the  tabernacle.  Jesus  said  of  His  washing 
Peter's  feet,  If  I  wash  thee  not  thou  hast 
no  part  with  me.  Peter  then  cried  out.  Not 
my  feet  only,  but  my  hands  and  my  head. 
He  reasoned,  If  some  washing  is  good,  then 
let  me  have  more.  Baptists  are  not  followers 
of  John,  but  of  Peter.  They  practice  bap- 
tism into  water — John  practiced  baptism 
with  water.  They  use  bapto  eis,  he  used 
baptizo  en.  The  Fathers^  writings  show 
that  even  when  they  used  immersion,  in 
some  cases  they  baptized  the  sick  upon  their 

55 


56  BAPTISM. 

beds.  They  held  that  all  waters  baptized. 
They  fell  into  Peter's  error  in  practice,  yet 
they  never  taught  that  the  mode  of  ap- 
plying the  water  was  essential.  Some  added 
exorcism  and  anointing,  and  trine  immer- 
sion, one  for  each  person  of  the  Trinity. 
What  did  they  mean  by  baptize?  They 
meant  bringing  a  person  into  a  holy  state  by 
the  water  and  Spirit  coacting  upon  the  per- 
son. They  thought  w^ashing  the  body  would 
absorb  more  virtue.  Therefore,  they  made 
not  an  immersion  only,  but  a  real  washing. 

For  many  years  the  Baptists  did  not  im- 
merse. They  assert  that  the  English  Bap- 
tists made  the  change  in  1641.  Till  then 
this  sect  practiced  baptism  as  did  other 
churches.  They  seem  to  have  introduced 
immersion  one  hundred  years  after  their 
origin  in  Germany,  to  separate  their  chuT'ch 
from  otliers  w^ith  a  wider  mark  of  distinc- 
tion. Yet  the  most  of  them  in  England  to 
this  day  do  not  make  so  much  of  immersion, 
do  not  unchurch  all  who  prefer  another  of 
sixteen  definitions  of  baptize  rather  than  im- 


IM3IERSI0N—WHY  INTRODUCED?       57 

merse.  But  in  this  country  it  is  dip,  or  you 
cannot  be  a  member  of  the  church  of  God. 
Baptized  into  Moses  meant  a  new  disposition 
in  Israel  to  receive  and  obey  Moses.  It  was 
not  true  that  all  were  immersed  in  Moses. 
Nor  were  the  Corinthians  immersed  or  buried 
or  plunged  into  Paul.  Baptized  into  Christ's 
body  means  our  union  with,  our  articulation 
into  His  church.  The  virtue  of  such  bap- 
tisms is  not  in  the  size  of  Paul  or  Moses  or 
the  church  ;  but  in  the  new  disposition — the 
new  creation  by  the  Spirit.  Applying  the 
Baptist  immersion,  what  a  perversion  of 
truth  to  say,  All  Israel  was  plunged,  dipped, 
immersed  into  Moses  !  All  Christians  are 
by  the  Spirit  baptized  into  Christ  so  as  to  be 
one  in  Him.  What  a  caricature  of  the 
truth  is  it  to  say  they  are  dipped  into 
Christ. 


CHAPTER    IX. 
EEASONS   FOR   IMMERSION. 

OUR  brethren,  of  course,  have  some  texts 
which  they  use  to  justify  their  theory. 
One  is  that  John  baptized  in  Jordan.  Why 
this  record,  say  they,  if  it  was  not  an  im= 
mersion  ?  The  answer  has  been  given  be- 
fore. In  Jordan  designates  the  place.  No 
Baptist  reasons  that  John  immersed  in  sand 
from  the  record  that  John  baptized  in  the 
wilderness,  nor  that  lie  dipped  converts  in  the 
dust  because  it  is  written,  John  baptized  in 
Bethabara.  John  baptized  in  the  Jordan,  in  the 
river  Jordan,  not  in  water  but  ivith  water. 
Brother  Curtis  has  found  in  Mark  1  :  9, 
baptized  and  eis  (into,  or  to,  or  at)  in  the 
same  verse.  But  the  eis  is  not  connected 
with  water.     He   has   translated   eis  on  the 

58 


REASONS  FOR  UUIERSION.  59 

preceding  page  at.  But  on  this  page  he 
seizes  upon  into  as  the  meaning.  We  are 
sorry  to  take  away  his  comfort.  But  if  eis 
means  at  on  one  page,  why  may  it  not  on 
the  other  ?  Brother  Curtis  not  only  contra- 
dicts himself,  but  makes  Matt.  3:13  using 
epi  at,  or  upon,  conflict  with  Mark.  When 
Matthew  says  Jesus  came  from  Galilee 
upon  the  Jordan,  he  means  the  same  as 
Mark  saying  he  came  from  Galilee  and  was 
baptized  by  John,  eis  Jordan.  Moreover, 
Prof.  Curtis'  construction  conflicts  with  all 
the  many  representations  in  ancient  churches 
of  our  Lord's  baptism.  He  stood  at  or  in 
Jordan  w^hile  John  poured  the  baptizing 
water. 

2.  A  second  Baptist  reason  for  immersion  is 
Col.  2  :  12,  buried  with  him  in  Baptism.  It 
reconciles  many  to  the  sad  experience  of  im- 
mersion that  they  not  only  imitate  Christ's 
baptism,  but  that  they  are  buried  loith  Him, 
so  come  nearer  to  Him  in  baptism.  But 
Christ  is  in  heaven,  not  in  mill-ponds.  He 
was  buried  over  eighteen  hundred  years  ago 


60  BAPTISM. 

— we  cannot  be  buried  bodily  with  him ; 
moreover,  his  burial  was  in  a  room  hewn  out 
of  a  rock  into  which  Joseph  carried  his  body 
and  rolled  a  great  stone  against  the  door. 
There  is  nothing  in  immersion  like  the  burial 
of  Jesus.  Moreover,  a  brief  statement  is 
always  to  be  interpreted  by  one  more  full. 
Rom.  6  :  3  tells  us  we  are  baptized  into 
Christ's  death ;  verse  4,  buried  with  him  by 
baptism  into  death  ;  verse  5,  planted  with 
him  ;  verse  6,  our  old  man  crucified  with  him  ; 
verse  8,  died  with  Christ.  Can  any  of  these 
things  be  affirmed  of  water  baptism? 
Neither  does  Col.  2  :  12  teach  anything 
about  water  baptism.  The  Apostle  says  we 
are  complete  in  Christ,  circumcised  in  His 
circumcision,  buried  with  Him  in  ^^  the  bap- 
tism,''raised  up  in  Him,  quickened  with  Him, 
all  trespasses  forgiven.  Are  these  attributes 
of  water  baptism,  even  if  in  an  ocean  ? 
Nay,  but  they  are  attributes  of  "  the  "  one 
baptism.  "  JTte'^  is  in  the  Greek.  If  it 
had  been  translated  it  might  have  saved 
many  from  error.    Col.  2  teaches  us  we  have 


REASONS  FOR  IMMERSION.  61 

all  in  Christ  by  faith,  which  is  the  operation 
of  God.  How  absurd,  then,  is  it  to  say  we 
are  buried  by  dipping  and  are  raised  up  by 
faith  !  But  few  would  ever  get  out  of  an 
immersion  if  this  was  the  way  of  escape. 
Buried  with  Christ  in  "  the  baptism ''  has  no 
more  water  in  it  than  had  baptizing  the  one 
hundred  and  twenty  with  tongues  of  fire. 
The  baptism  that  buries  us  with  Christ  is  the 
same  that  crucifies  us  and  raises  us  up  and 
makes  us  complete  in  Him.  Water  has  no- 
thing to  do  with  this  baptism  but  to  profess 
it. 

As  great  dependence  is  placed  on  Rom.  6  : 
4,  we  examine  the  text  more  carefully.  We 
are  buried  with  Him  by  baptism  into  death. 
What  death  ?     Ans.,  v.  3,  Christ's  death. 

What  buries  us  ?  Ans.  Our  baptism — by 
baptism.  When  did  Christ  die?  Ans. 
Over  eighteen  hundred  years  ago.  Can  we 
be  buried  bodily  with  Him  in  time  ?  Cer- 
tainly not.  Can  we  be  placed  bodily  in 
Joseph's  tomb  ?  Certainly  not.  How  then 
are  we  buried  with  Him  ?  In  the  sense  that 
6 


62  BAPTISM. 

He  died  and  was  buried  and  rose  for  us. 
What  baptizes  us  into  his  death  ?  The  Holy 
Spirit's  work.  AVho  administers  this  baptism  ? 
Our  ascended  Saviour.  How  does  He  bap- 
tize? By  sending,  pouring  out  the  Spirit. 
What  does  the  Spirit  do  for  us  ?  He  bap- 
tizes, merges  into  Christ.  What  is  the  bene- 
fit of  this  baptism?  It  makes  us  complete 
in  Christ  ?  Can  water  baptism  effect  such  a 
result  ?  Never.  What  relation  has  water 
baptism  to  this  spiritual  work  ?  It  can  only 
symbolize  and  profess  it.  Can  we  be  buried 
in  water  with  Christ  ?  Nay,  He  is  in 
heaven.  Can  we  die  on  the  cross  with 
Jesus?  There  was  none  with  Him.  Can  we 
rise  bodily  out  of  water  with  Him  ?  This  is 
impossible.  What  is  meant  by  dying  with 
Him,  being  dead  with  Him,  crucified  with 
Him,  complete  in  Him,  buried  with  Him  ?  It 
means  our  perfect  union  with  Him  in  His  suf- 
ferings for  us,  so  they  were  as  good  to  us  as 
our  dying  under  the  penalty  and  rising  to  a 
new  life.  What  buries  us  with  Christ?  The 
baptism  by  the  Holy  Spirit.      Ought  water 


REASONS  FOR  UHIERSION.  63 

baptism  to  represent  Christ's  burial  ?  Nay. 
Of  all  things  His  burial  by  Joseph  has  no 
special  significance  except  to  assure  us  of  the 
reality  of  His  death.  Ought  baptism  to 
rejyresent  His  death  ?  Nay.  The  supper  is 
to  show  forth  His  death. 

3.  Another  Baptist  reason  for  immersion 
is  1  Pet.  3:  21.  The  like  figure  whereunto 
even  baptism  doth  now  save  us.  Noah  is 
figured  to  have  been  immersed  in  the  flood 
and  drawn  out,  so  Christians  now  immersed 
in  water  are  drawn  out  saved.  But  Peter 
says  our  baptism  is  not  a  washing  away  of 
the  filth  of  the  flesh,  but  it  is  the  state  of  the 
conscience  through  the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
Christ.  Peter  connects  this  saving  work 
w^ith  the  finished  redemption  of  our  Lord. 
Moreover,  Noah  was  not  immersed.  The 
antediluvians  only  were  immersed,  and  our 
brethren  themselves  own  that  the  baptism  of 
the  Spirit  alone  can  save.  Peter,  then,  like 
Paul,  was  not  speaking  of  a  water  baptism 
that  cannot  save,  but  of  the  baptism  of  the 
Spirit. 


64  BAPTISM. 

4.  A  fourth  Baptist  reason  is  found  in 
1  Cor.  10  :  2.  All  Israel  was  baptized  into 
Moses  with  the  cloud  and  with  the  sea.  The 
cloud  stood  between  them  and  the  Egyptians, 
yet  baptized  them.  The  sea,  in  walis  miles 
apart,  enclosed  them,  yet  baptized  them,  so 
cloud  and  sea  made  them  belkive  the  Lord 
and  his  servant  Moses.  Ex.  14 :  31.  Dr. 
Conant  happily  defines  this  as  a  baptism 
bringing  into  a  new  state  of  life  and  experi- 
ence. This  was  the  baptism  of  Israel  going 
through  the  sea  on  dry  ground.  The  Egypt- 
ians were  immersed,  not  baptized.  Israel  was 
not  immersed,  but  baptized  with  the  cloud 
and  sea.  Apply  Dr.  Conant's  idea  of  Israel's 
baptism  to  Rom.  6:4.  It  brings  into  a  new 
state  of  life.     It  unites  us  with  Christ. 

5.  A  fifth  Baptist  reason  for  immersion  is 
the  baptism  of  the  Eunuch.  He  had  been  to 
Jerusalem  to  worship ;  he  was  reading  Isai- 
ah's prophecy  of  Christ.  Philip  asked  him 
if  he  understood  it.  Being  invited,  he  ascended 
the  chariot  and  explained  Isaiah.  The  Eunuch 
had  seen  the  priests  purify  the  people  by 


EEASOXS  FOE  UUIERSION.  65 

sprinkling,  had  read  the  prophecy  that  said 
Christ  should  sprinkle  many  nations ;  dis- 
covering water,  he  said,  See,  water;  what 
doth  hinder  me  from  being  bajitized  ?  Upon 
his  confessing  Christ,  "  they  both  descended 
to  the  water  both  Philip  and  the  Eunuch, 
and  he  baptized  him.''  These  words  marked 
are  a  literal  rendering  of  the  Greek.  There 
is  no  immersion  recorded ;  there  was  no  pre- 
pai-ation  of  garments  for  it ;  there  has  never 
been  found  in  that  desert  water  enough  for 
an  immersion.  How  unlikely  there  was  any  ? 
He  had  seen  priests  sprinkle  ashes,  blood, 
incense  and  water  ;  he  was  reading  the  proph- 
ecy of  Christ  sprinkling  many  nations. 
How  naturally,  then,  he  would  expect  to 
profess  purification  in  the  way  he  had  seen 
and  read  of  its  being  done. 

6.  A  sixth  reason  given  for  immersion  is 
John  3  :  23.  Much  ivater.  Why  much  water 
if  it  were  not  for  immersion  ?  The  answer  is 
found  in  the  preceding  verse  recording  that 
Jesus  and  the  crowds  attending  his  ministry 
were  also  in  the  same  region.     He  was  now 

6* 


66  BAPTISM. 

making  more  disciples  than  John,  John  (4  : 
1.)  Much  water  would  be  needed  for  the  two 
great  congregations.  Enon  in  Hebrew  means 
fountains.  It  is  the  plural  of  en — fountain. 
Jesus  and  John  could  assemble  multitudes  in 
that  part  of  Judea,  because  there  was  much 
water  in  these  fountains.  The  learned  Am- 
brose says  there  were  twelve  fountains  and 
seventy  palm-trees.  At  Elim,  Israel  came 
to  twelve  fountains.  Ex.  15  :  27.  Our  im- 
mersion brethren  suppose  that  these  fountains 
may  have  poured  their  water  into  reservoirs 
sufficient  for  immersion.  John  3  :  23  can 
serve  immersion,  then,  only  by  improbable 
guess-work.  1,  that  Baptizo  means  here  not 
any  of  its  many  meanings  except  immerse  ; 
2,  that  these  fountains  drained  into  a  reser- 
voir ;  and  3,  that  the  mention  of  these  many 
springs  was  for  immersion  and  not  for  the 
drinking  and  cooking  purposes  of  the  great 
multitude. 

7.  A  seventh  reason  given  for  immersion 
is  John  3  :  5 — born  of  water.  The  other 
part  of  the  verse  is  born  of  the  Spirit.     AYe 


EEASONS  FOR  IMMERSION.  67 

have  seen  that  the  Spirit  works  by  coming 
upon,  descending,  pouring  upon.  If  this  is 
giving  a  new  creation — a  birth  into  the  king- 
dom— then  birth  by  water  should  be  pro- 
fessed by  pouring  out,  causing  to  descend. 
Nicodemus  was  an  inquiring  Jew.  He  found 
that  outward  ordinances  had  not  satisfied ; 
he  came  to  ask  what  farther  was  necessary. 
Jesus  guides  him  at  once  to  a  purification  by 
the  Spirit.  It  was  not  yet  time  to  say,  all 
Mosaic  observances  are  ended.  But  it  was 
time  to  say  that  a  man  must  have  more  than 
water  purification  ;  he  must  have  with  it  a 
spiritual  purification — so  be  born  of  water 
not  only,  but  of  the  Spirit.  There  was  no 
immersion  for  purification  as  there  is  no  im- 
mersion into  the  Spirit, 


CHAPTER  X. 

POSTURE   IN   BAPTISM. 

ALL  ancient  pictures  known  represent 
Jesus  as  standing  when  baptized  by 
John.  When  he  received  the  baptism  of  the 
Spirit  he  was  going  up  from  Jordan.  The 
Spirit  came  on  Him  while  He  was  walking. 
Classic  Greeks  speak  of  armies  baptized  all 
day  while  niarching.  The  Spirit  baptized 
the  one  hundred  and  twenty  at  Pentecost 
when  they  were  sitting ;  Saul  was  baptized 
standing. 

Now  shall  we  seize  on  one  position,  and 
say  baptism  must  be  administered  to  one 
standing?  That  would  make  us  like  some 
seizing  upon  one  meaning  of  baptize.  What 
folly  to  legislate  that  in  baptism  the  baptized 
must  stand  !    Did  not  Saul  stand  ?   Does  not 


POSTURE  IN  BAPTIS3L  69 

Luke  use  the  word  seventy-nine  times,  so  we 
can  be  sure  of  our  posture  ?  Very  true — 
true,  this  word  forbids  an  immersion.  But 
yet  there  was  a  baptism  of  the  Spirit  filling 
the  disciples,  and  with  tongues  of  fire  rest- 
ing upon  them  where  they  were  sitting. 
Even  when  the  error  had  crept  in  that  water 
and  Spirit  must  co-work,  yet  they  baptized 
the  sick  upon  their  couches.  But  the  theory 
"  no  dipping  no  baptism  "  was  not  true  in 
any  of  these  baptisms.  There  is  no  record 
of  a  baptism  in  lying  down.  Sitting,  stand- 
ing or  walking  are  Bible  postures. 


CHAPTER    XI. 
THE   BAPTISM    OF   CHILDREN. 

OUR  Baptist  brethren  deny  that  children 
have  any  such  right  to  ordinances  in  the 
New  as  they  had  in  the  Old  Testament — 
that  the  door  of  the  gospel  church  breaks  all 
family  relations — that  we  enter  the  Church 
without  wife  or  child.  And  all  because  it  is 
written  '^  he  that  believeth  and  is  baptized.^' 
They  insist  that  faith  in  the  candidate  must 
precede  baptism,  because  in  this  one  verse 
faith  is  mentioned  first. 

But  take  the  great  Commission,  Matt.  28, 
translate  it  literally.  Going  disciple  all  na- 
tions, baptizing  them  into  the  name  of  the 
Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  teaching  them  to  observe.  Here  bajD- 
tizing  is  put  before  teaching.  Must  we  bap- 
70 


THE  BAPTIS3I  OF  CHILDREN.  71 

tize  before  we  teach  ?  1  Cor.  6  :  11,  Ye  are 
washed,  ye  are  sanctified,  ye  are  justified.  If 
the  order  of  words  is  an  authority,  first  bap- 
tism, then  sanctification,  then  justification. 
Is  this  the  divinely  appointed  order  ?  Here 
and  in  the  great  Commission  our  brethren 
agree  with  us  that  the  order  is  not  authori- 
tative. AYhy  then  rule  the  children  out  of 
the  kingdom  by  a  catch  at  words  ?  Better 
take  the  order  baptize,  teach,  as  in  Mat.  28, 
or  wash,  sanctify,  in  PauFs  epistle  to  Corinth. 
Here  are  two  texts  putting  baptize  and  wash 
before  teach.  Then  the  order  of  words  is 
two  to  one  in  the  children's  favor. 

Our  brethren  assume  that  the  New  Testa- 
ment made  such  a  change  in  the  administra- 
tion of  God's  grace,  that  the  church  is  a  new 
institution  and  the  conditions  of  membership 
are  changed.  But  the  New  Testament  and 
Old  alike  teach  that  the  virtue  of  an  ordi- 
nance is  the  state  of  the  heart. — Circumcis- 
ion denoted  the  heart's  devotion.  Why  can- 
not the  same  principle  be  applied  to  the  bap- 
tism of  children?     While  God  commanded 


72  BAPTISM. 

the  heart  to  be  circumcised,  yet  he  required 
circumcision  of  the  flesh  on  the  eighth  day. 
When  the  Old  Testament  calls  Israel  my 
people,  a  hundred  times — and  my  chosen — 
my  beloved  and  saints — how  wrong  to  deny 
that  Israel  was  a  church  ! 

Besides,  the  New  Testament  addresses  com- 
mands to  parents  and  children  as  equally  in 
the  church.  Eph.  6  :  4,  Bring  up  your 
children  en,  not  eis,  in,  not  into  the  nurture 
and  admonition  of  the  Lord.  Lu.  18:  16, 
Of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  ^.  e.,  the 
kingdom  belongs  to  them.  Yet  must  they 
be  excluded  from  the  very  badge  of  member- 
ship? Yea,  denied  any  membership?  The  effort 
is  made  to  neutralize  this  text  by  saying  the 
kingdom  belongs  to  the  childlike.  See  the 
wrong  of  this  interpretation.  Brephos  is 
the  word  that  described  the  infant  Saviour  in 
the  manger.  The  plural  is  br^epha.  When 
parents  brought  such  to  Jesus  [breplia  is  the 
word)  and  the  twelve  resisted  them,  Jesus 
said,  suffer  the  little  children  to  come  unto 
me    and   forbid   them   not.     The    Apostles 


THE  BAPTISM  OF  CHILDREN.  73 

thought  baby-blessing  wrong.  But  the  Mas- 
ter corrected!  their  carnal  reasoning.  He 
imparts  spiritual  blessings  to  babes,  and  He 
says  the  kingdom  of  heaven  belongs  to  them. 
Sad  if  it  is  now  unlawful  to  bring  them  to 
Jesus.  Jesus  baptized  babes  with  His  Spirit. 
Is  it  wrong  to  profess    that  spiritual  work  ? 

Again  consider  children  were  in  the  cov- 
enant of  works  and  fell  in  Adam.  Was  the 
covenant  to  work  only  for  their  condemna- 
tion ?  Is  not  grace  to  abound  to  them  even 
as  the  evil  of  the  fall  has  afflicted  them  ? 
Has  the  covenant  principle  no  application 
to  them  but  for  ruin  ?  If  death  reigned  by 
the  sin  of  one,  shall  not  grace  reign  through 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ?  Is  not  this  the 
doctrine  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  Rom.  5  ?  Is 
it  eternal  law  that  the  iniquity  of  fathers  can 
be  visited  on  children  and  yet  there  is  no 
counter-principle  of  visiting  the  good  of  par- 
ents? 

Also  consider  that  God  has  always  included; 
children  in  covenant-dealing.  As  with  Adam 
so  with  Noah,  Abraham  and  David.     When 

7 


74  BAPTISM, 

He  covenanted  with  Israel  it  was  with  the 
men  not  only,  but  with  their  wives  and  little 
ones.  Have  the  principles  of  God's  govern- 
ment so  changed  that  He  cannot  embrace 
children  in  covenant  privileges  ?  The  chil- 
dren have  rights  in  all  other  governments. 
Have  they  been  ruled  out  of  the  best  govern- 
ment? What  Stephen  called  the  church  in 
the  wilderness  had  blessings  for  them  in  the 
two  sacraments,  Circumcision  and  the  Pass- 
over. Has  the  Gospel  in  its  fuller  grace 
nothing  for  the  family  ?  Has  the  Head  of 
the  church  repealed  that  law  which  for  four 
thousand  years  brought  unspeakable  blessings 
to  children  ?  Where  is  the  repeal  ?  Was  it 
by  the  mouth  of  Peter,  saying  the  promise 
is  to  you  and  to  your  children  ?  Did  He 
annul  that  principle  when  Paul  said  to  the 
jailer,  believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  and  thou 
shalt  be  saved  and  thy  house  ? 

If  that  principle  was  repealed,  why  is 
there  not  only  no  record  of  it,  but  no  com- 
plaint about  it?  Jewish  converts  \\ere  very 
slow   to   give    up    ceremonial    observances. 


THE  BAPTISM  OF  CHILDREN.  75 

But  did  they  give  up  all  the  rights  of  their 
children  without  a  whisper  of  complaint  ? 
How  impossible ! 

Consider  also  that  there  is  no  such  break 
between  the  Old  and  New  Church  as  our 
brethren  suppose.  The  New  Church  has  the 
same  scriptures — the  same  promises — is  built 
not  only  upon  apostles,  but  upon  prophets — is 
grafted  into  and  partakes  of  the  fatness  of 
the  good  olive  tree,  Rom.  11.  While  Jews 
and  proselytes  brought  their  families  with 
them  into  the  kingdom,  yet  if  one  parent 
remained  an  idolater  the  children  were 
excluded.  Is  this  the  law  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament? Nay.  It  is  more  comprehensive 
than  Judaism.  1  Cor.  7  :  14,  The  children 
are  clean,  and  so  suitable  to  be  offered  to 
God  when  but  one  parent  is  a  believer. 

In  the  days  of  the  prophets,  God  said, 
"  Thou  hast  taken  thy  sons  and  thy  daugh- 
ters whom  thou  hast  borne  unto  me,  and 
these  hast  thou  sacrificed ;  .  .  .  thou  hast 
slain  my  children.'^  Ez.  16:  20,  21.  Are  not 
children  born  unto  God  now  as  well  as  then? 


76  BAPTISM. 

Was  it  wrong  then  to  turn  them  over  to  idols 
and  yet  not  wrong  now  to  deny  that  they 
belong  to  God  ? 

Consider  also  that  all  the  historic  churches, 
Greek,  Roman,  Armenian,  Coptic,  baptize 
their  children.  Some  retain  also  circumcision. 
How  came  infant  baptism  into  them  all, 
unless  from  the  teaching  of  Apostles.  Origen 
says  they  received  it  from  the  Apostles  ?  The 
Council  of  Carthage  was  asked  to  decide  if 
baptism,  like  circumcision,  must  be  on  the 
eighth  day.  Did  the  Church  understand 
that  infants'  rights  had  been  abolished? 
They  decided  that  baptism  need  not  be  on 
the  eighth  day,  but  at  an  early  period.  When 
Pelagius  was  teaching  that  infants  had  no 
original  sin,  and  was  accused  then  of  denying 
baptism  to  them,  he  said,  not  only  he  did  not, 
but  that  he  had  not  heard  of  the  most  im- 
pious heretic  that  denied  infant  baptism. 
Pelagius  was  born  in  England,  traveled  over 
Europe,  Africa  and  Palestine.  If  there  had 
been  a  sect  in  Christendom  refusing  to  bap- 
tize children,  he  would  have  found  it.     But 


THE  BAPTISM  OF  CHILDREN.  77 

our  brethren  try  to  neutralize  this  historical 
argument.  They  find  a  Tertullian  wiio  ad- 
vises a  delay  of  baptism  in  the  case  of  chil- 
dren and  young  people,  that  baptism  might 
wash  away  as  many  sins  as  possible. 

The  error  then  was  rife  that  water  co- 
acted  with  the  Spirit  in  cleansing  the  soul. 
Tertullian  advised  delay,  to  have  the  greatest 
benefit  in  sweeping  away  accumulated  sins. 
But  the  very  advice  to  delay  proves  the  ex- 
istence of  the  rite.  If  there  was  no  such 
practice,  would  a  sane  man  ask  that  it  be 
postponed  ?  And  when  his  reason  for  it  was 
a  mere  superstition  that  baptism  effaced  guilt, 
how  absurd  to  make  such  advice  weigh  more 
against  baptism  than  the  writings  of  all  the 
Fathers  for  it. 

Consider  the  practice  of  the  Apostle  of  the 
Gentiles.  When  Lydia's  heart  was  opened 
to  the  gospel,  she  was  baptized  and  her  fam- 
ily. There  is  no  record  of  any  faith  but 
hers.  After  baptism,  she  grounded  her  plea 
not  upon  the  family's  faith,  but  she  said,  If 
ye  have  judged  me  to  be  faithful  (Gr.,  pistane, 
7* 


78  BAPTISM. 

believing),  abide  in  my  liouse.  Most  Baptist 
-writers  cite  the  jailer's  family  as  believing; 
but  any  Greek  scholar  will  tell  them  that 
Acts  IG  :  34  ascribes  faith  to  the  jailer  only. 
Believing  in  God,  he  rejoiced  with  all  his 
house,  is  the  literal  rendering.  The  Apostle 
had  promised,  "  believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus, 
and  thou  shalt  be  saved  and  thy  family.^' 
Acts  16  :  34  records  that  he  did  believe.  And 
when  any  Greek  scholar  says  that  this  text 
ascribes  faith  to  the  family  also,  you  moy 
know  he  misrepresents  the  record.  Believ- 
ing is  a  participle  nominative  singular, 
agreeing  with  jailer. 

1  Cor.  1  :  16  teaches  that  Paul  baptized 
the  family  of  Stephanas ;  but  did  not  remem- 
ber baptizing  any  other  family,  because  Christ 
sent  him  not  so  much  to  baptize  as  to  evan- 
gelize. Stephanas  was  a  disciple  present 
with  Paul  when  he  wrote  to  the  Corinthians. 
It  is  certain  from  1  Cor.  16  :  15  he  was  a  be- 
liever. Paul  baptized  not  Stephanas,  but  his 
family.  And  when  he  adds,  after  oikon  of 
Stephanas,  tina  allon,  it  shows  how  customary 


THE  BAPTISM  OF  CHILDREN.  79 

was  family  baptism.  He  baptized  his  fam- 
ily, but  did  not  recall  any  other  family.  He 
thanked  God  that  he  baptized  only  Crispus 
and  Gains,  lest  people  should  say  he  had 
baptized  them  into  his  own  name.  Did  this 
imply  that  baptism  was  withdrawn  from 
adults?  He  baptized  two  adults  and  one 
family,  and  did  not  remember  a  second  at 
Corinth.  If  adult  baptism  is  continued,  how 
certain,  then,  is  family  baptism.  As  in  the 
Old,  so  in  the  New  Covenant,  parents  took 
their  families. 

See,  Paul  salutes  families,  commends  Noah's 
faith  in  building  an  ark  to  save  his  family. 
Peter  says  the  like  figure  saves  us.  But  how 
it  grates  upon  that  likeness  to  say  the  family 
is  excluded ! 

See  Peter's  work  first  opening  the  Church 
to  the  Gentiles.  The  angel  promised  Corne- 
lius, Peter  shall  speak  words  to  thee  by  which 
thou  shalt  be  saved  and  thy  family.  Acts  11 : 
14.  And  Peter  seeing  the  Spirit  fall  upon 
Cornelius  and  family  and  friends,  arranged 
that  they  should  be  baptized.  Acts  10 :  44,  48. 


80  BAPTISM. 

Did  Peter  do  wrong  in  baptizing  the  family 
with  Cornelius  and  kinsmen?  Did  the  angel 
misunderstand  the  constitution  of  the  Church? 
Did  he  promise  too  much,  saying  Peter  shall 
tell  thee  words  by  which  thy  family  shall  be 
saved?  How  evident  is  it  that  neither  the 
apostles  nor  angels  yet  knew  that  children 
were  turned  out  of  the  Church  of  God  ! 

Matt.  18:  5  commends  receiving  little 
children  as  receiving  Christ.  Are  they  then 
unfit  to  receive  the  outward  sign  that  they 
belong  to  him  ?  Was  there  ever  a  shepherd 
who  thought  it  a  profanation  to  put  his  mark 
upon  his  lambs?  Has  Jesus  recalled  the 
command,  "feed  my  lambs?'' 

Gal.  3  teaches  that  the  blessins:  of  Abra- 
ham  has  come  on  the  Gentiles,that  to  Abraham 
and  his  seed  were  the  promises  made,  that  if 
we  be  Christ's,  we  are  Abraham's  seed  and 
heirs  according  to  the  promise — that  the  law 
four  hundred  and  thirty  years  after  the  cov- 
enant cannot  disannul  it.  Does  this  change, 
then,  the  foundation-principle  of  the  Church  ? 
Has  the  Gospel  taken  away  what  the  law 


THE  BAPTISM  OF  CHILDREN.  §1 

could   not  do?     Paul  taught  the  opposite. 
In  all  God's  covenants  parents  acted  for  their 
offspring.     Parents  could  lay  up  iniquity  for 
their  children.  Job  21 :  19.     Children  from 
the  days  of  Abel  to  Zacharias  could  suffer  for 
the  parents'  sins,  lie  in  exile  for  them,  and 
confess  them.  Dan.  9.    But  is  there  nothing 
in  contrast  with  this  evil  ? — "  His  blood  be 
on  us  and  on  our  children,"  was  the  impre- 
cation.    Israel  is  still  suffering  for  it.     Can 
the  curse  run  through  a  thousand  generations, 
while   "  the   promise "  ends   with    parents  ? 
Nay,  nay,  nay.     This  principle  underlies  all 
governments.     It  is  in  the  very  organization 
of  society.    It  was   on   this   principle   that 
John  was  circumcised.  Lev.  1  :  59,  and  the 
infant  Jesus  was  taken  to  the  temple  and 
presented  to  the  Lord.  Luke  2  :  22.     How 
impossible,  then,  for  this  principle  to  be  in- 
operative now ! 

Again  and  again  we  are  assured  the  seed 
of  the  righteous  is  blessed ;  that  God  loves  chil- 
dren for  their  parents'  sake ;  that  He  claims 
that,  as  the  souls  of  parents,  so  the  souls  of 


32  BAPTISM. 

children  are  His.  Ez.  18  :  4.  The  objection 
that  the  babe  is  unconscious,  has  no  more 
weight  against  infant  baptism  than  it  has 
against  circumcision,  than  it  had  against 
Christ's  blessing  infants,  than  it  had  against 
presenting  the  infant  Saviour  to  the  Lord. 
If  the  sign  of  devotion  was  good  from  Abra- 
ham to  John  the  Baptist,  is  it  not  as  good 
to  Gentiles,  who,  as  stones,  have  been  raise 
up  as  spiritual  children  unto  Abraham  ?  If 
Abraham's  faith  brought  blessings  to  his  race 
— if  David's  secured  favors  for  his  seed — if 
parents'  faith  in  Egypt  saved  the  first  born — 
if  theSyrophenician's  brought  health  to  her 
daughter — if  Jairus'  brought  life  to  his  dead 
child,  and  if  the  centurion's  faith  brought 
healing  to  his  slave,  cannot  faith  now  bring 
anything  to  children  ?  Are  such  narratives 
misleading  and  delusive?  Do  they  not  con- 
firm the  command,  ^^  disciple,"  baptizing  and 
teaching  all  nations?  Yea,  when  our  Lord 
has  assembled  His  people  at  the  last,  He  will 
apply  this  principle,  saying  to  the  Father, 
"behold,  I  and  the  children  which  God 
hath  given  me."  Heb.  2  :  13. 


THE  BAPTISM  OF  CHILDREN.  83 

Our  brethren  object,  there  is  no  command. 
Answer: — 1.  There  is  no  command  to  be 
called  Baptist,  none  to  publish  a  Baptist 
Bible,  none  to  immerse.  There  is  no  com- 
mand to  pray  in  families,  none  to  observe 
the  first  day  of  the  week,  none  for  women  to 
commune.  But  all  God's  covenant  dealings 
imply  tliis  filial  relation,  all  governments 
recognize  it,  all  the  Apostles  taught  it,  and 
all  their  churches  practice  it  to  this  day. 

2.  Let  children  first  believe.  Answer  : — 
The  brepha  infants  were  not  required  first  to 
believe ;  the  first  born  in  Egypt  had  not 
first  to  believe  ;  the  infant  Jesus  had  not  first 
to  believe  before  circumcision ;  the  infant 
Jew  now  in  exile  has  not  first  to  believe  be- 
fore it  suifers ;  the  Syrophenician's  daughter 
had  not  first  to  believe,  nor  had  Jairus'  dead 
child  first  to  believe.  Has  not  a  parent's 
faith  as  much  power  now  ?  Can  Dr.  An- 
derson and  Prof.  Curtis  write  of  the  Jailer's 
family  ^^  it  is  explicitly  affirmed  that  they 
were  all  believers  ? "  Had  those  brethren 
read  their  Greek  Testament  they  would  find 


84 


BAPTISM. 


believing  agreeing  with  Jailer  only.  So  the 
Jailer  and  Lydia  and  Cornelias  and  Ste- 
phanas by  faith,  like  Noah,  saved  their  fami- 
lies.    Were  these  families  without  children? 


CHAPTER    XII. 
HISTORICAL   EVIDENCE. 

THE  history  of  the  Apostles  in  the  Acts 
extends  to  63  a.d.  One  has  counted 
forty-eight  names  of  converts  in  the  New 
Testament.  The  baptism  of  seven  of  them 
is  recorded,  and  with  them  four  famihes.  If 
this  ratio  four  to  seven  is  applied  to  the  forty- 
eight,  it  gives  twenty-seven  families  baptized. 
But  the  ratio  may  have  been  even  more.  Not 
only  did  the  four  Crispus,  Lydia,  Cornelius 
and  the  Jailer,  accept  infant  baptism,  but  the 
Eunuch  is  reported  to  have  returned  home, 
established  a  Christian  Church,  which  to  this 
day  baptizes  infants.  Some  followers  of  Simon 
Magus  also  baptized  their  children.  Saul, 
another  of  the  seven,  we  find  baptized 
children.  So  the  proportion  of  four  to 
seven  may  be  six  to  seven. 

S  85 


SQ  '  BAPTISM. 

But  with  four  to  seven  for  the  ratio,  in 
one  hundred  thousand  converts  there  would 
have  been  fifty-seven  thousand  families. 
Here  is  one  of  the  sources  of  the  rapid 
growth  of  the  early  church.  Parents  took 
their  children  with  them  into  the  kingdom, 
and  trained  them  for  Christ.  May  not  loose 
notions  about  children's  obligations  now 
hinder  the  growth  of  the  Church  ?  Are  not 
multitudes  justifying  their  neglect  of  wor- 
ship by  this  evil  theory  that  parent's  faith 
and  example  cannot  obligate  children  ? 

President  Dwight  has  collected  the  follow- 
ing testimony  from  the  Fathers.  "Was  he 
able  to  weigh  such  evidence  ? 

1.  Justin  Martyr  writes  of  persons  made 
disciples  of  Christ  from  their  infancy.  That 
infancy  was  from  the  year  70  A.D.,  so  in  the 
days-  of  the  Apostles. 

2.  Irenseus  was  a  disciple  of  Polycarp, 
John's  convert.  He  writes  of  the  great 
pleasure  he  had  in  hearing  Polycarp  repeat 
the  teachings  of  our  Lord  as  John  taught 
him.      He  writes,,  Christ   came   "to   save 


HISTORICAL  EVIDENCE.  87 

infants  and  little  ones  and  children  and 
youths  and  elder  persons  who  are  born 
again/'  By  born  again,  President  D wight 
says  Irenseus  "  means  baptized  as  he  else- 
where shows/'  Here  was  a  witness  only  a 
few  years  after  John. 

3.  Origen,  born  184.  The  Church  hath 
received  the  tradition  from  the  Apostles  that 
baptism  ought  to  be  administered  to  infants. 

4.  Cyprian  writes  of  the  decision  of  sixty- 
six  ministers  in  council  at  Carthage,  "  that 
no  infant  is  to  be  prohibited  from  the  benefit 
of  baptism,  although  but  just  born.''  The 
question  asked  of  the  Council  was,  ought 
baptism  be  on  the  eighth  day  ? 

5.  Gregory  Nazianzen  exhorts  parents  to 
offer  their  children  to  God  in  baptism. 

6.  Augustine,  of  the  fourth  century — 
"The  whole  Church  practices  infant  bap- 
tism. It  was  not  instituted  by  Councils,  but 
was  always  in  use/'  "  Had  not  read  of  one 
Catholic  or  heretic  who  maintained  that  bap- 
tism ought  to  be  denied  to  infants."  "This 
the  Church  has  always  maintained/' 


88  BAPTISM. 

7.  Pelagiiis — "Who  can  be  so  impious  as 
to  hinder  the  baptism  of  infants?" 

Here  are  seven  of  the  leading  writers  of 
the  Church  from  the  Apostles  down  to  the 
fourth  century.  What  folly  to  deny  all  this 
evidence  because  Tertullian  asked  that  bap- 
tism be  delayed  in  the  case  of  children  and 
youths  and  unmarried  people  ! 

One  who  has  studied  history  a  great  deal 
finds: 

1.  For  four  hundred  years  Tertullian  was 
the  only  one  asking  delay. 

2.  For  the  next  seven  hundred  years  none 
asked  for  or  even  delayed  baptism. 

3.  In  1120  a  sect  arose  denying  infant 
salvation  and  so,  by  inference,  ruled  out  in- 
fant baptism  —  a  sect  soon  immersed  into 
nothingness. 

4.  In  1522,  five  years  after  the  Glorious 
Reformation,  the  Anabaptists  revived  the 
error. 

And,  moreover,  on  the  graves  of  children 
are  engraved  all  the  peculiar  appellations 
of  Christians.     They  are  called  by  the  very 


HISTORICAL  EVIDENCE.  89 

names  the  Holy  Spirit  gives  to  Christians. 
They  are  called  holy,  believing ;  said  to  re- 
pose in  the  bosom  of  Abraham,  Isaac  and 
Jacob  ;  repose  in  peace  among  the  saints — in 
the  peace  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  If  Paul  dis- 
tinguished Christians  by  such  terms  as  holy, 
believing,  faithful  saints,  what  did  PauFs 
converts  mean  when  they  wrote  these  words 
on  the  graves  of  their  little  ones  ?  The  cata- 
combs of  Rome  testify  to  the  infant  member- 
ship of  the  early  churches.  Thousands  of 
children,  as  well  as  parents,  also  died  there 
for  Jesus.  Their  friends  recorded  their  devo- 
tion. An  acquaintance  visited  the  catacombs. . 
He  confirms  all  that  has  been  given  in  such 
testimony.  The  very  stones  of  the  tombs 
cry  out  against  depriving  children  of  their 
place  in  the  church  of  God. 

8«- 


CHAPTEE  XIII. 

THE  RELATION  OF  BAPTIZED  CHILDEEN  TO 
THE  CHURCH. 

THERE  is  no  difficulty  in  understanding 
that  children  are  in  the  State,  with  rights 
and  duties.  Why  cannot  children  be  "of 
the  kingdom  '^  in  the  same  way  ?  They  are 
under  the  care  of  the  Church,  are  to  be 
trained  up  for  Christ.  As  soon  as  they  have 
the  qualifications  as  in  the  State  so  in  the 
Church  they  are  to  perform  the  duty  of 
members.  In  the  Protestant  Church  these 
qualifications  are  knowledge  and  piety.  See 
Confess,  of  Faith,  page  436,  and  Meth.  Dis- 
cipline, page  30.  The  Churches  so  practicing 
get  as  good  members  in  the  judgment  of  the 
world  as  those  who  deny  infant  baptism. 

How  wrong  is  the  charge  "  that  piety  is 
not  required,'^  "  that  these  Churches  receive 
members  without  conversion.'' 
90 


CHAPTER    XIV. 
CONCLUSION. 

1.  It  is  in  accord  with  apostolic  practice  to 
transfer  Baptizo,  not  to  translate  it. 

2.  There  is  no  duty,  then,  resting  upon 
the  Church  to  expend  millions  to  introduce 
immerse  or  dip.  These  words  do  not  respond 
to  Baptizo  in  its  varied  meanings.  The  effort 
to  make  them  has  signally  failed  even  with 
Baptists.  They  disuse  their  own  Bible,  after 
millions  expended  for  it. 

3.  Baptism  for  party  divisions  is  misused. 
Unity  is  the  Bible  idea  of  "the  one  bap- 
tism." A  baptism  to  be  the  badge  of  divi- 
sion, is  contrary  to  the  essence  of  Scriptural 
baptism,  which  is  "  all  into  one  body." 

4.  When  the  Pharisees  made  a  handle  of 
Jesus   baptizing   more  disciples  than  John, 

91 


92  BAPTISM. 

Jesus  retired  from  Judea  into  Galilee.  This 
is  opposite  to  the  spirit  which  crowds  upon 
the  work  of  others,  seeking  proselytes  to  our 
mode  of  administration,  to  our  church,  as 
more  pure  for  its  immersion. 

5.  If  the  authority  of  dictionaries  is  al- 
lowed its  force,  if  the  one  baptism  by  the 
Spirit  is  the  model,  if  the  example  of  Apostles 
is  followed,  baptism  must  be  withj  not  into^ 
water,  and  families  as  well  as  individuals 
must  receive  baptism. 

6.  The  Church  erred  by  adding  exorcism, 
oil,  white  robes,  processions  and  nude  wash- 
ings to  the  simple  ordinance. 

7.  There  is  no  consistent  agreement  among 
Baptist  writers  differing  about  Baptizo  and 
the  prepositions  used  with  it.  Truth  is  con- 
sistent.    Error  originates  disagreement. 

8.  God's  people,  —  called  elect,  chosen, 
beloved,  family, — always  embraced  children 
with  covenant  privileges.  When  the  New 
Testament  calls  His  people  by  their  new 
name  (Isa.  62  :  2) — Christians — the  Church 
yet  does   not  lose  its   identity.     When  the 


CONCLUSION.  93 

natural  branches  are  broken  off  and  the 
kingdom  taken  from  unbelieving  Jews,  then 
the  Gentiles  are  made  the  inheritors  of  the 
promises  made  to  Israel.  This  truth,  so  often 
asserted,  secures  the  rights  of  children. 

9.  The  Westminster  Assembly  of  1644, 
after  hearing  the  Baptist  members  two  or 
three  days  plead  for  immersion  as  one  mode 
of  baptism  wisely  rejected  it. 


Date  Due 

;  ~'-- 

1 

f 

Theological  Semmary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  01021   2662 


